Who Are The Oath Keepers On Conspiracy Trial With Stewart Rhodes?

evince said:
In June 2011, the chairman and a subcommittee chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both Republicans, said that the FCC, in response to their requests, had set a target date of August 2011 for removing the fairness doctrine and other "outdated" regulations from the FCC's rulebook.[81]
Click to expand...

the fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987.
Fairness Doctrine | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
By the 1980s, the fairness doctrine was losing clout. The deregulatory nature of the Reagan administration and the technological advances that were rendering scarcity arguments moot combined to pressure the FCC to abandon the doctrine. In 1987 the FCC formally abolished it. The doctrine, however, continues to have its defenders (Arbuckle 2017).
 
LurchAddams said:
I think it's mostly trolling and lying to themselves as well as to us. It's pretty clear what happened, they want us to believe no one else believes the irrefutable evidence. It's kind of like they're all doing some kind of affirmation to themselves, "J6 was just a peaceful tour". Yeah, twumptards.. sure.
Click to expand...

So they are the type of people who are comfortable bald faced lying on an obscure message board.

I wonder if it is a reflection of how willing they are to lie in real life to family, friends, spouses.
 
The Rush Limbaugh show started in 1992


He could spew lies and never present a dissenting view of his lies
 
Cypress said:
So they are the type of people who are comfortable bald faced lying on an obscure message board.

I wonder if it is a reflection of how willing they are to lie in real life to family, friends, spouses.
Click to expand...

Well.. let's take Herschel Walker for example. Proponent of no abortion, no exceptions, but how many has he paid for? Yeah.. anyone running on the GOP ticket now without denouncing trump or the big lie, are morally bankrupt.
 
Yakuda said:
This from a lying pussy. I love the fairy tales, emphasis on fairy, that you create for yourself.
Click to expand...
Yakuda said:
The young lady in that picture looks like the product of a society that handed out participation trophies and convinced her she was the most important person in the world. Leftist education at it's best.
Click to expand...

Sick fucks like you who hate others deserve every bad thing coming your way. While I believe you have age-related mental issues, like those listed below, that's not an excuse for your advocation of violence.

6xrn4o.jpg
 
LurchAddams said:
I think it's mostly trolling and lying to themselves as well as to us. It's pretty clear what happened, they want us to believe no one else believes the irrefutable evidence. It's kind of like they're all doing some kind of affirmation to themselves, "J6 was just a peaceful tour". Yeah, twumptards.. sure.
Click to expand...

It’s an indication of how sick the people who adhere to the Republican party are



They saw that day


They watched the attack while it took place



Then they just absorbed the lie from fox that it was not what they saw with their own eyes



Mental weakness
 
Hello evince,

evince said:
In June 2011, the chairman and a subcommittee chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both Republicans, said that the FCC, in response to their requests, had set a target date of August 2011 for removing the fairness doctrine and other "outdated" regulations from the FCC's rulebook.[81]
Click to expand...

Make America fair again.
 
The SCOTUS found it perfectly legal again and again



The right always fought it


They can’t win elections without lies
 
evince said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine



The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine,[2] prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation.[3] However, later the FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[4]

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[5][6]

While the original purpose of the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, it was used by both the Kennedy and later the Johnson administration to combat political opponents operating on talk radio. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[7] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
Click to expand...






Decisions of the United States Supreme Court
Edit
In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8–0) the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Cook sued arguing that the fairness doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[19]

Although similar laws are unconstitutional when applied to the press, the court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time. Writing for the court, Justice Byron White declared:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others. ... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.[7]
Moreover, the court did not see how the fairness doctrine went against the First Amendment's goal of creating an informed public. The fairness doctrine required that those who were talked about be given chance to respond to the statements made by broadcasters. The court believed that this helped create a more informed public. Justice White explained that, without this doctrine, station owners would only have people on the air who agreed with their opinions. Throughout his opinion, Justice White argued that radio frequencies (and by extension television stations) should be used to educate the public about controversial issues in a way that is fair and non-biased so that they can create their own opinions.[20]

The court "ruled unanimously in 1969 that the Fairness Doctrine was not only constitutional but essential to democracy. The public airwaves should not just express the opinions of those who can pay for air time; they must allow the electorate to be informed about all sides of controversial issues."[21] The court also warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered. Justice William O. Douglas did not participate, but later wrote that he would have dissented because the Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of the press was absolute.[22]

However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court):

Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.
This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can theoretically face an unlimited number of competitors.

In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not forbid editorials by non-profit stations that received grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)). The court's 5-4 majority decision by William J. Brennan Jr. stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the fairness doctrine's limits unnecessary:

We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required. (footnote 11)
After noting that the FCC was considering repealing the fairness doctrine rules on editorials and personal attacks out of fear that those rules might be "chilling speech", the court added:

Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine '[has] the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing' speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case. (footnote 12)[23]
 
Hello evince,

evince said:
It’s an indication of how sick the people who adhere to the Republican party are



They saw that day


They watched the attack while it took place



Then they just absorbed the lie from fox that it was not what they saw with their own eyes



Mental weakness
Click to expand...

It really is quite stark.

And then later, they hear that the J6SC is having hearings. They refuse to watch or listen. They hear the snippets of testimony, mostly by Republicans and members of Trump's administration, and they dismiss all of that as lies.

You can lead a MAGA to the truth but you cannot get them to accept it.

They literally repel the truth.
 
AssHatZombie said:
the fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987.
Fairness Doctrine | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
By the 1980s, the fairness doctrine was losing clout. The deregulatory nature of the Reagan administration and the technological advances that were rendering scarcity arguments moot combined to pressure the FCC to abandon the doctrine. In 1987 the FCC formally abolished it. The doctrine, however, continues to have its defenders (Arbuckle 2017).
Click to expand...

Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top