How Many Of You Believe?

[Claude91098]

How many of you believe in this, I mean REALLY BELIEVE???

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

IF you TRULY believe in this, then you cannot possibly support the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". It's ONLY purpose is to stifle the above, PERIOD!

[jbm32206]

I'm behind you 100% in this....and don't buy into this Fairness Doctrine at all!

[spidey]

Do you not like it because it's the feds regulating it, or is it really an issue of free speech, or both? Giving the opposite side of the issue an opportunity to respond is okay with me. I like to hear all sides....can you imagine listening only to the Fox network, day in and day out :biggrin:....before I make up my mind.

Is the Fairness Doctrine the way to accomplish that? I'm not sure. But I do like the premise underlying the idea.

[rpschutt]

Ugh. I do have to watch FOXNews all day. Day after day after day after day...

Speaking of which...did you see the conservative group that ripped FOXNews for their reporters having "shorter skirts that prostitutes on COPS"?

[spidey]

How did I miss that one? ;)

[Charles Hunter]

First, the Right of Free Speech is not absolute ("fire" in a crowded ....)

Second, isn't the purpose of the Fairness Doctrine to require broadcast* news outlets to allow "the other side" an equal opportunity to air their views? If the premise of the political right is correct, and the Big 3 News are left-leaning (with only Fox on the "right"), doesn't that mean that the FD requires them to air non-liberal views, that they might not otherwise? If I recall correctly, the FD was enacted when there were only 3 national broadcast TV networks. As TV is already a regulated industry (FCC), the FD is designed to open up the airwaves to 'other' views.

Which brings up a point ... is the Fairness Doctrine a LAW enacted by Congress, or a Rule by the FCC? Does it matter vis a vis the First Amendment?

Or is the problem that, with a conservative President, you don't like having to hear from the "loyal opposition"?

And, if your question is purely Constitutional and not partisan, my apologies for the preceding partisan comment.


* There is some question about whether the FD applies to cable outlets. Whatever network airs Law and Order is continuing to show the Fred Thompson episodes - something that on broadcast would likely require giving all of the other candidates equal time.

[spidey]

The Fairness Doctrine was in effect from 1949 to 1987. There were several court cases over it, and with deregulation in the 80s the FCC decided to abolish the practice. There have been several attempts by Congress recently to enact it into law. It actually passed Congress in 1987, but was subsequently vetoed by Reagan. A second time, it passed again, but was vetoed by Bush. The Fairness Doctrine is not currently in effect, although some TV and radio stations practice it anyway. (It doesn't apply to print media BTW.) The issue has always been just under the surface, and it appears it has come up for air again.

[Charles Hunter]

Thanks, Spidey, I did not know that it had been abolished. But, like you said, there is always talk about it. So, the networks give the "out" party a chance to rebut a Presidential address because they want to, not that they are required to. Interesting.

[spidey]

Charles-

I'm not sure that the Presidential address and rebuttal aren't allowed under another policy/law other than the Fairness Doctrine. I'm checking into that now.

[spidey]

According to the Office of the Clerk for the House of Representatives, opposition responses to the President's State of the Union address did not begin until 1966.

Here's a link to the Clerk's page that has the history of the State of the Union address. It's pretty interesting.

http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/stateunion.html

[Claude91098]

MY opposition is purely a Constitutional one.

How can there be "freedom of speech", (intended to be political speech if you read the federalist papers), if it is suppressed because affording all sides "equal time" is so restrictive that the airway medias just refuse to carry any at all, OR, "their" selected views and responses to same?

That smacks of "state run media" to me and has no place in our country.

I know what some think: Left wing medias have failed miserably when the right wing media has flourished. The reason is that the righties have a product to sell that people in the media markets want to hear.

The lefties do not have enough of a base to support the same thing from their points of view.

The free market system dictates what is viable and what is not. Sorry, that's life in the big city. The ONLY way to "balance" that reality is to UNBALANCE the Constitution. THAT is something I will fight to my dieing breath!

Any American Citizen that believes in our Constitution and this country would be opposed to it as well, IMHO.

The government doesn't "allow us" freedom of speech. It is a RIGHT that was recognised by the government. Big difference. It's time Americans started standing up for our Constitution and giving the professional politicians that message loud and clear!

[rpschutt]

Here ya go, Spidey...

media watchdog group" The Resistance is all worked up over the ultra-femme anchors of Fox News. The group's leader, Mark Dice, rants in an e-mail, "I see shorter skirts on the women of Fox News than I do on the prostitutes being arrested on cop shows." Fox responded, "We're always flattered to have everyone talking about us in one form or another."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/09/christian-group-fox-news_n_67693.html

[spidey]

Does that come under the classification of "bad publicity is better than no publicity at all"? ;)

[Claude91098]

And this has something to do with the 1st Admendment how exactly?

Com'on folks....I'm trying to be serious here...ok?

[spidey]

Sorry, Claude....we didn't mean to hijack the thread. ;)

[Charles Hunter]

Claude, actually I pretty much agree with you, in today's cable world. Although not everyone has access to cable, I think the penetration is deep enough to be considered ubiquitous. Back in the day of 3 - and only 3 - networks, I would argue vociferously for the "Fairness Doctrine".

Also, if, as was said earlier, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, why do the broadcast networks seem to follow it?

[Claude91098]

Claude, actually I pretty much agree with you, in today's cable world. Although not everyone has access to cable, I think the penetration is deep enough to be considered ubiquitous. Back in the day of 3 - and only 3 - networks, I would argue vociferously for the "Fairness Doctrine".

Also, if, as was said earlier, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, why do the broadcast networks seem to follow it?

The Democrats are trying to resurrect it Charles. If they do, the Constitution has been subverted. I don't care for right wingers nor left wingers...I care about this country and our Constitution. I took an oath to protect and defend it. I take my oaths seriously!

I know why I'm NOT in politics: I cannot be "bought". I will never compromise my ethics and principles. I will always try to do "the right thing" even if it hurts ME or my friends and family. I never back away from an issue because it seems unsurmountable and I loath cheaters, liars and manipulators.

That's my political and life's belief...period.

[shine]

.

[shine]

.

[Claude91098]

Shine,

I'm not a leftie nor a rightie. I do not listen to Rush nor Hannity. I do listen to Boortz from time to time but not on a regular basis. I do not agree with everything Boortz has to say either, I just like the way he pisses folks off! LOL

I started this thread because there is definately a move afoot to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The main purpose is to stifle right wing radio talk shows, mainly Rush and Hannity types. (There ARE others.)

The bottomline for me is that the 1st Admendment guarentees freedom of political speech. It doesn't say "equal time" nor does it say that it must be "fair". The wording is very clear and not open to a lot of interpretation. Commonsense dictates that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, is not protected by the 1st Admendment. Other examples abound.

I do not want ANYONE, left, right, center trying to subvert the 1st Admendment...period. Such things as the Fairness Doctrine result in just that and hence are on my target list. (See avatar!) ;-)

[shine]

.

[Claude91098]

Oh, I am with you. 1st amendment 1st.

I just tink some of the talk of fairness doctrine is to create fear not fairness. "Never mind that man behind the curtain.." Oz

Oh...We're cool!

The "fear mongering" is definately coming from the right wingers. They think of quelching this idea as "job security". Frankly, if they ALL went off the air tomorrow I wouldn't care. But if they were "run off the air" by some government intervention, THEN I'd be ready to go to war!