Fairness Doctrine

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
[ ... ]You know damn well that the only reason you support this is because you dont like the content of the speech, and you know damn well that if this were proposed in areas controlled by liberals, education for example, you would be screaming from the hilltops. Pointing to FCC regulation of airwaves is just a cloak of your true intent, and you and I both know it. ...

And you know damn well the only reason you oppose this is because it impedes your quest to shred the Constitution and sell our children into corporate slavery.

Gee, attacking others with inane unsupported accusations is fun. It's so much easier than forming reasoned opinions about the subject and actually addressing others' points.

Oh, so allowing a certain kind of speech that you find undesirable is shredding our constitution? Silly me, I guess my interpretation of the freedom of speech clause was all wrong.

And another one "leaps squarely into the camp of the willfully stupid. What part of 'inane unsupported accusations' exceeds your intellectual capacity?"

:roll:

I knew even the over-the-top sarcasm of "sell our children into corporate slavery" would fly right over the heads of some of our slower members, but I thought even they would get it when I explicitly pointed out what I was doing: "Gee, attacking others with inane unsupported accusations is fun. It's so much easier than forming reasoned opinions about the subject and actually addressing others' points." I've apparently given them too much credit. I think maybe Fusetalk needs a crayon font.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Look... let's bring the rule back so the courts can slap it down and get it over with.

The ONLY way to make this work is to have some government employee listen to AM radio and classify each host?s political leanings.

Fortunately, others are not so lacking in innovative ideas as you. There are any number of ways this could be implemented. I pointed out a couple of possible approaches earlier. Indeed, the fact is it worked successfully for years without having "some government employee listen to AM radio".

Now as every thread on media bias proves: what one person calls bias another calls the ?truth.? Would be the same thing here.

Just go back a few months and you will find people on here who claimed that Keith Olberman was speaking the ?truth? but Bill O?Reilly was a crazy conservative.
It is all a matter of personal opinion

Yup, so we ensure we have a reasonably balanced mix of those personal opinions. That may not serve the public interest perfectly, but it is better than the current situation.

 

[Narmer]

If this can tone down the recklessness on the public airwaves and make people more civil, I'm all for it.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Narmer
If this can tone down the recklessness on the public airwaves and make people more civil, I'm all for it.

define recklessness.

see, there is the problem. What some people consider civil discussion others consider it something else, hence our founding fathers were smart enough to realize that government must not be allowed to interfere in speech because people would use the power of government to stop others.

Yes, I am not making this up. Surrounding the current whoop-la over "fairness" on the airwaves, the House passed the amendment 309-115. It is attached to the Financial Services Appropriations bill. This is the same bill that David Obey, the democratic chair of the Appropriations Committee, tried to improperly sneak in millions of dollars in earmarks ... exactly what Democrats said they would fight this Congressional term.

The amendment was sponsored by Representative Mike Pence of Indiana. But he's not done yet. He wants to make sure ? absolutely sure ? that this is a permanent change. That's why he is also sponsoring the Broadcasters Freedom Act. It prohibits the FCC from making any rules, regulation or policies that would reinstate fairness quotas. It also says that the FCC and any future President can't reinstate the doctrine. Did you hear that Hillary? Blab away with as many liberals (on as many elevators) as you'd like ... but, if this bill passes, there is no way you are going to "deal" with talk radio ? not without a new law.

looks like a lot of democrats represent people instead of the moonbat side of their political group

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Narmer
If this can tone down the recklessness on the public airwaves and make people more civil, I'm all for it.</end quote></div>

define recklessness.

see, there is the problem. What some people consider civil discussion others consider it something else, hence our founding fathers were smart enough to realize that government must not be allowed to interfere in speech because people would use the power of government to stop others.

People with common sense understand 'civil discussion'. Right-wing zealots don't.

Our founding fathers allow you to put what you like in, say, a newspaper or book within the normal limits of 'free speech'.

For the limited resource of public airwaves some would like to profit from, the government can require more in the public interest from balance, as the Supreme Court upheld.

 

[shrumpage]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shrumpage
I noticed you didn't answer my very simple question.

If you have sex on a busy street corner, in public view, and you get arrested is that having your free speech violated?</end quote></div>
With all due respect, your "simple question" is dumb, and has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Please focus on the topic at hand instead of spiralling out into ever less relevant diversions.
</end quote></div>

No its not.

You say government regulating porn is the same thing as regulating speech. You can rant and rave on the street corner, you can rant and rave on the radio, free speech. Yet you can't have sex on the street corner, nor have sex (pornographic) stuff on the airwaves.

Is it ok for the government to regulate people having sex on the street corner, but not the airwaves?

Or is there a difference between pornography and political speech?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JD50
I'm still not seeing how this is ok for AM radio but not ok for any other form of media, public airwaves or private. Using Bowfingers all or none argument when it comes to the government regulating speech, I'm sure that Bowfinger would have a problem with HBO airing a series showing explicit child porn, live executions, rape, or murder. So obviously he does believe that private forms of media need to be regulated somewhat as well. Maybe I'm wrong and Bowfinger would have no problem with women being raped on cable TV, please correct me if I am.

Bowfinger I'm not being a smartass here, I'd seriously like you to address this.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Narmer
If this can tone down the recklessness on the public airwaves and make people more civil, I'm all for it.</end quote></div>

define recklessness.

see, there is the problem. What some people consider civil discussion others consider it something else, hence our founding fathers were smart enough to realize that government must not be allowed to interfere in speech because people would use the power of government to stop others.</end quote></div>

People with common sense understand 'civil discussion'. Right-wing zealots don't.

Our founding fathers allow you to put what you like in, say, a newspaper or book within the normal limits of 'free speech'.

For the limited resource of public airwaves some would like to profit from, the government can require more in the public interest from balance, as the Supreme Court upheld.

you proved my point perfectly by branding your opponents as "zealots" thereby removing your need to refute their speech and feel empowered to block theirs.

YOUR the exact type of person the founding fathers had in mind when they went out and made it clear that government could not be used to restrict speech.

so, why don't the public airwaves include TV? Can you imagine how much chaos will occur everytime a daytime tv host makes an unfavorable comment about (insert group name here) and they demand and use the courts to get time to say something else?

so basically you would prefer a society where the other side can only talk if YOU deem it reasonable, considering your post history I doubt they could use any words other than "the, and, and an" without you flying off the handle. a society where those with opinion cannot get their voice heard because broadcasters are scared into allowing over someone's perceived offense?

with people like YOU we would have the amnesty bill already signed and rammed down our throats.

but then you don't care, as long as the other guy can't say stuff you don't like life is fine.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: BowfingerFortunately, others are not so lacking in innovative ideas as you. There are any number of ways this could be implemented. I pointed out a couple of possible approaches earlier. Indeed, the fact is it worked successfully for years without having "some government employee listen to AM radio".

AM radio was essentially DEAD before the law was repealed. So nothing worked, but if your government that would be a success?

 

[Craig234]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
I'm still not seeing how this is ok for AM radio but not ok for any other form of media, public airwaves or private...</end quote></div>


Bowfinger I'm not being a smartass here, I'd seriously like you to address this.
</end quote></div>

Bowfinger:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As mentioned before, I agree a Fairness Doctrine should apply to all broadcast media, including television. </end quote></div>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Internet is not a scarce resource nor is it a public resource. There is no need for that sort of regulation since (almost literally) anyone can be heard.</end quote></div>

Now, a third category that's interesting is the 'effective limited bandwidth' of cable, controlled by corporate interests.

It's not a public resource like the airwaves for the government to hand out; but it's not an unlimited resource like the internet (for now) is.

The effects can be seen from the few companies available for cable service, and their dictatorial powers in controlling what you see. Where is the Al-Jazeera (English) channel?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
I'm still not seeing how this is ok for AM radio but not ok for any other form of media, public airwaves or private...</end quote></div>


Bowfinger I'm not being a smartass here, I'd seriously like you to address this.
</end quote></div>

Bowfinger:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As mentioned before, I agree a Fairness Doctrine should apply to all broadcast media, including television. </end quote></div>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Internet is not a scarce resource nor is it a public resource. There is no need for that sort of regulation since (almost literally) anyone can be heard.</end quote></div>

Now, a third category that's interesting is the 'effective limited bandwidth' of cable, controlled by corporate interests.

It's not a public resource like the airwaves for the government to hand out; but it's not an unlimited resource like the internet (for now) is.

The early effects can be seen from the few companies available for cable service, and their dictatorial powers in controlling what you see.

For example, no cable company in the US I know of will carry the very Al-Jazeera World channel, and I don't think it's for a lack of subscriber interest; it's the political backlash.

When theres a demand for it, you'll get it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
I'm still not seeing how this is ok for AM radio but not ok for any other form of media, public airwaves or private...</end quote></div>


Bowfinger I'm not being a smartass here, I'd seriously like you to address this.
</end quote></div>

Bowfinger:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As mentioned before, I agree a Fairness Doctrine should apply to all broadcast media, including television. </end quote></div>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The Internet is not a scarce resource nor is it a public resource. There is no need for that sort of regulation since (almost literally) anyone can be heard.</end quote></div>

Now, a third category that's interesting is the 'effective limited bandwidth' of cable, controlled by corporate interests.

It's not a public resource like the airwaves for the government to hand out; but it's not an unlimited resource like the internet (for now) is.

The early effects can be seen from the few companies available for cable service, and their dictatorial powers in controlling what you see.

For example, I'd like to be able to see Al-Jazeera World, which is very available to the cable companies - but not one I know of in the US will sell it to me. Free market?

I'm talking strictly about the government regulating speech on cable. Bowfinger made the argument that we are hypocrites because we support the government keeping porn off of the public airwaves but we don't think that they should regulate political speech, and he also does not see the difference between regulating political speech and porn. Now, if you recognize that there is a need for the government to regulate things such as child pornography on cable channels, then how can you be against the fairness doctrine being extended to cable channels and newpapers? This is based on his argument that he is solely concerned with the public interests.

 

[JD50]

If you support this on the principle of serving the public interests, you should be focusing this on the other media outlets, the ones that far more people are exposed to than AM talk radio. I'd venture to guess that more people watch movies and cable TV than listen to AM talk radio. It is not in the public interest to promote a predominantly liberal POV on these other media outlets, especially considering that fact that more people are affected by it. You agree that it is within the public interests to keep child pornography and public executions off of cable TV and movies correct? So you agree that it is acceptable to regulate speech on cable and in the movies as well.

If you are solely interested in the public interests, it shouldn't matter how scarce the airwaves are, what should matter is what is actually be played on air, whether it be cable or AM radio. Yes, conservatives do have the opportunity to make a conservative movie and conservative cable channels, just as liberals do have the opportunity to start a liberal AM radio show. Unless you are contending that there is not one available AM radio station in the country, you cannot make the argument that there are fewer liberal AM stations because of the "scarcity" of available stations, which seems to be the argument here.

Lets say that there are 5 available bands, or whatever, on AM radio, that are not being used and that liberals are free to use for their shows. If they are not being used, it doesn't matter whethere there are 5 available bands, or an unlimited number of channels that are not being used like cable. The only way that part of your argument holds any weight is if there are no available stations, which is not the case.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: shrumpage
I noticed you didn't answer my very simple question.

If you have sex on a busy street corner, in public view, and you get arrested is that having your free speech violated?

With all due respect, your "simple question" is dumb, and has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Please focus on the topic at hand instead of spiralling out into ever less relevant diversions.

No its not.

You say government regulating porn is the same thing as regulating speech.

No, that's not what I said. Please read my comments again.

You can rant and rave on the street corner, you can rant and rave on the radio, free speech. Yet you can't have sex on the street corner, nor have sex (pornographic) stuff on the airwaves.

Is it ok for the government to regulate people having sex on the street corner, but not the airwaves?

Or is there a difference between pornography and political speech?

Are you be willfully obtuse here? One more try, then I'm just going to start cutting and pasting my earlier comments.

My example of broadcast porn was specifically to demonstrate the inconsistency of your statements. First, you claimed the Fairness Doctrine was wrong because, "Any time you are having the government regulate speech, its a bad thing." "Any" time, absolute, no exceptions, no need to discuss the nuances of how and when government regulation might be appropriate because it's always a bad thing. Case closed.

But ... you then acknowledge that regulating broadcast porn is a good thing, implicitly refuting your basis for claiming the Fairness Doctrine is bad. In short, you set yourself back to square one. Having acknowledged that some government regulation is in fact good, you can no longer hide from the question by claiming "Any time ... it's a bad thing." You now have to consider each situation individually. I'm challenging you to specifically justify why requiring fair and balanced content on the public airwaves is bad instead of offering only a generic comment about free speech. Everyone believes in free speech in the abstract; the debate is where do we draw the line and why? That was and is my point.

Make sense?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50
I'm still not seeing how this is ok for AM radio but not ok for any other form of media, public airwaves or private. Using Bowfingers all or none argument when it comes to the government regulating speech, I'm sure that Bowfinger would have a problem with HBO airing a series showing explicit child porn, live executions, rape, or murder. So obviously he does believe that private forms of media need to be regulated somewhat as well. Maybe I'm wrong and Bowfinger would have no problem with women being raped on cable TV, please correct me if I am.

Bowfinger I'm not being a smartass here, I'd seriously like you to address this.

If you seriously want me to address something, you'll have much better luck if you don't start with a bogus premise. First, I've said multiple times a Fairness Doctrine should apply to all broadcast, not just AM. You know that, yet you continue parroting that dishonest suggestion. Next, there is nothing I said suggesting I believe in an "all or none argument". (On the contrary, I'm the king of shades of grey.) Finally, your innuendo about me having "no problem with women being raped on cable TV" is far more likely to get you a new orifice for excrement than it is to foster productive discussion. If you actually want productive discussion, I strongly suggest you learn how to offer it yourself.

So, if I strip out the BS, I think what you're asking is why shouldn't the government regulate most, perhaps all communications media instead of just broadcast? I believe I've already answered that several times as well, but we'll give it another go (just because I like you ).

I strongly believe in the First Amendment. It is one of our most fundamental and most cherished founding principles. In general, therefore, the government has no business censoring speech. Key phrase, "in general." As a pragmatic, shades of grey person, however, I recognize there are times when the government has a legitimate need to impose some regulations on some forms of communications. One of those exceptions is the use of the public airwaves. Because they are a scarce resource, it is vital they be used to serve the overall public good.

Note that contrary to some's claims, I am NOT advocating government censorship of the public airwaves. I would be opposed to the Dems trying to take Rush Limbaugh from AM, for example, or to banning all politcal content. But that's not what a Fairness Doctrine does. It makes no specific direction about who should and who should not have a microphone. It simply requires that if station owners choose to broadcast Rush, they must also choose programming that fairly balances his views. This serves the public interest of disseminating fair and balanced information. In both cases, it is the station owner, not the government, making the choice of what specifically to air. The government simply establishes a broad ground rule that someone profiting from the public airwaves must do so in a way that benefits the overall public interest.

The government loses that right outside of the confines of publicly-owned media. With extremely narrow exceptions, freedom of speech outweighs competing public interests when it comes to private media. As a citizen, you are entitled to your soapbox no matter what you want to say, whether it serves the public interest or not ... as long as the soapbox is yours. Your free speech rights do not extend to others' soap boxes, however, nor do they extend without limits to public resources. Public airwaves are special, and need to be treated somewhat differently.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: BowfingerFortunately, others are not so lacking in innovative ideas as you. There are any number of ways this could be implemented. I pointed out a couple of possible approaches earlier. Indeed, the fact is it worked successfully for years without having "some government employee listen to AM radio".

AM radio was essentially DEAD before the law was repealed. So nothing worked, but if your government that would be a success?

Do you have a point? AM worked fine for decades under the Fairness Dcotrine, then died for the reasons I outlined in another post. The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with it.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: BowfingerFortunately, others are not so lacking in innovative ideas as you. There are any number of ways this could be implemented. I pointed out a couple of possible approaches earlier. Indeed, the fact is it worked successfully for years without having "some government employee listen to AM radio".</end quote></div>

AM radio was essentially DEAD before the law was repealed. So nothing worked, but if your government that would be a success?</end quote></div>
Do you have a point? AM worked fine for decades under the Fairness Dcotrine, then died for the reasons I outlined in another post. The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with it.

I think the point is:

Since the fairness doctrine went away, AM talk radio exploded. The market increased because the LACK of GOVERNMENT intervention.

Rush Limbaugh, is called a pioneer for a reason, he came out with a partisan, one man's opinion/ entertainment show - that became hugely popular. A show that paved way for many, many more hosts, shows and stations. He would not have been able to do that under the fairness doctrine.

There are more voices, more opinions, more shows, on radio then ever before!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
I'm still not seeing how this is ok for AM radio but not ok for any other form of media, public airwaves or private. Using Bowfingers all or none argument when it comes to the government regulating speech, I'm sure that Bowfinger would have a problem with HBO airing a series showing explicit child porn, live executions, rape, or murder. So obviously he does believe that private forms of media need to be regulated somewhat as well. Maybe I'm wrong and Bowfinger would have no problem with women being raped on cable TV, please correct me if I am.</end quote></div>


Bowfinger I'm not being a smartass here, I'd seriously like you to address this.</end quote></div>
If you seriously want me to address something, you'll have much better luck if you don't start with a bogus premise. First, I've said multiple times a Fairness Doctrine should apply to all broadcast, not just AM. You know that, yet you continue parroting that dishonest suggestion. Next, there is nothing I said suggesting I believe in an "all or none argument". (On the contrary, I'm the king of shades of grey.) Finally, your innuendo about me having "no problem with women being raped on cable TV" is far more likely to get you a new orifice for excrement than it is to foster productive discussion. If you actually want productive discussion, I strongly suggest you learn how to offer it yourself.

So, if I strip out the BS, I think what you're asking is why shouldn't the government regulate most, perhaps all communications media instead of just broadcast? I believe I've already answered that several times as well, but we'll give it another go (just because I like you ).

I strongly believe in the First Amendment. It is one of our most fundamental and most cherished founding principles. In general, therefore, the government has no business censoring speech. Key phrase, "in general." As a pragmatic, shades of grey person, however, I recognize there are times when the government has a legitimate need to impose some regulations on some forms of communications. One of those exceptions is the use of the public airwaves. Because they are a scarce resource, it is vital they be used to serve the overall public good.

Note that contrary to some's claims, I am NOT advocating government censorship of the public airwaves. I would be opposed to the Dems trying to take Rush Limbaugh from AM, for example, or to banning all politcal content. But that's not what a Fairness Doctrine does. It makes no specific direction about who should and who should not have a microphone. It simply requires that if station owners choose to broadcast Rush, they must also choose programming that fairly balances his views. This serves the public interest of disseminating fair and balanced information. In both cases, it is the station owner, not the government, making the choice of what specifically to air. The government simply establishes a broad ground rule that someone profiting from the public airwaves must do so in a way that benefits the overall public interest.

The government loses that right outside of the confines of publicly-owned media. With extremely narrow exceptions, freedom of speech outweighs competing public interests when it comes to private media. As a citizen, you are entitled to your soapbox no matter what you want to say, whether it serves the public interest or not ... as long as the soapbox is yours. Your free speech rights do not extend to others' soap boxes, however, nor do they extend without limits to public resources. Public airwaves are special, and need to be treated somewhat differently.

Actually, what I was insinuating is that you are NOT in favor rape, child porn, etc...be aired on HBO or other cable channels. Which also means that you are in favor of the government regulating private media outlets as well as AM radio. So basically, you think that private media outlets should be regulated less than public media outlets. Fair enough. But your point about the "scarcity" of public airwaves on AM radio is a red herring (I thought I'd throw that in there just for you). The only way that the "scarcity of public airwaves would play a role is if every single airwave (or whatever) is taken up and there are no stations available to play liberal radio shows. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

If no one wants to put a liberal show on the air, it doesn't matter if there is only one station thats not being used, or a million stations that aren't being used. The "scarcity" has nothing to do with it. The opportunity is there for liberal radio shows, its up to the liberals to take advantage of that opportunity and put their shows on. The problem is that no one wants to listen to liberals on the radio, for whatever reason. You can force stations to play liberal shows all you want, but you can't force people to listen to it, so whats the point?

The fairness doctrine is censorship, and it will force conservatives off the air. This point has been made and you ignore it, or call it a strawman, red herring, etc.. If all of a stations air time is full, someone will have to be taken off the air to air the liberal show, that people aren't going to listen to anyways.

Again, if you truly are concerned about what is in the best interest of the public, you should be fighting for fairness on cable tv, internet, newspapers, and in the movies, since many more people are effected by that than they are AM radio. You have already acknowledged that the government does need to regulate these private entities when you agreed that child porn and rape would not be acceptable on cable tv and in the movies. It doesn't make sense why you would be so concerned about the smallest media outlet if you truly are just concerned with whats in the best interest of the public.

BTW, yes, you have said that the fairness doctrine should apply to all broadcast, not just AM, I was not talking about that in my previous post so I'm not sure why you brought it up. I am talking about all forms of media. Unless you are saying that you think that it should apply to all public and private forms of broadcast, but you have made arguments against it applying to private entities so I doubt that.

So, show me these liberals that are trying to start up radio stations but they can't because there aren't any available stations and I'll concede that you might have a point. Until you can do that, it remains quite obvious that this is targeted at conservatives.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JD50
I'm still not seeing how this is ok for AM radio but not ok for any other form of media, public airwaves or private. </end quote></div>

BTW, yes, you have said that the fairness doctrine should apply to all broadcast, not just AM, I was not talking about that in my previous post so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

See your own first sentence, quoted above. You did bring it up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50
I'm still not seeing how this is ok for AM radio but not ok for any other form of media, public airwaves or private. Using Bowfingers all or none argument when it comes to the government regulating speech, I'm sure that Bowfinger would have a problem with HBO airing a series showing explicit child porn, live executions, rape, or murder. So obviously he does believe that private forms of media need to be regulated somewhat as well. Maybe I'm wrong and Bowfinger would have no problem with women being raped on cable TV, please correct me if I am.

Bowfinger I'm not being a smartass here, I'd seriously like you to address this.

If you seriously want me to address something, you'll have much better luck if you don't start with a bogus premise. First, I've said multiple times a Fairness Doctrine should apply to all broadcast, not just AM. You know that, yet you continue parroting that dishonest suggestion. Next, there is nothing I said suggesting I believe in an "all or none argument". (On the contrary, I'm the king of shades of grey.) Finally, your innuendo about me having "no problem with women being raped on cable TV" is far more likely to get you a new orifice for excrement than it is to foster productive discussion. If you actually want productive discussion, I strongly suggest you learn how to offer it yourself.

So, if I strip out the BS, I think what you're asking is why shouldn't the government regulate most, perhaps all communications media instead of just broadcast? I believe I've already answered that several times as well, but we'll give it another go (just because I like you ).

I strongly believe in the First Amendment. It is one of our most fundamental and most cherished founding principles. In general, therefore, the government has no business censoring speech. Key phrase, "in general." As a pragmatic, shades of grey person, however, I recognize there are times when the government has a legitimate need to impose some regulations on some forms of communications. One of those exceptions is the use of the public airwaves. Because they are a scarce resource, it is vital they be used to serve the overall public good.

Note that contrary to some's claims, I am NOT advocating government censorship of the public airwaves. I would be opposed to the Dems trying to take Rush Limbaugh from AM, for example, or to banning all politcal content. But that's not what a Fairness Doctrine does. It makes no specific direction about who should and who should not have a microphone. It simply requires that if station owners choose to broadcast Rush, they must also choose programming that fairly balances his views. This serves the public interest of disseminating fair and balanced information. In both cases, it is the station owner, not the government, making the choice of what specifically to air. The government simply establishes a broad ground rule that someone profiting from the public airwaves must do so in a way that benefits the overall public interest.

The government loses that right outside of the confines of publicly-owned media. With extremely narrow exceptions, freedom of speech outweighs competing public interests when it comes to private media. As a citizen, you are entitled to your soapbox no matter what you want to say, whether it serves the public interest or not ... as long as the soapbox is yours. Your free speech rights do not extend to others' soap boxes, however, nor do they extend without limits to public resources. Public airwaves are special, and need to be treated somewhat differently.

Actually, what I was insinuating is that you are NOT in favor rape, child porn, etc...be aired on HBO or other cable channels.

Until the next sentence when you insinuated I was.

Which also means that you are in favor of the government regulating private media outlets as well as AM radio. So basically, you think that private media outlets should be regulated less than public media outlets. Fair enough.

Dramatically less, as I already said ("with extremely narrow exceptions"), though your inference is incorrect for the two examples you gave. I have no issue with sexual activities between consenting adults. Neither rape nor child pornography meets that criteria, however.

But your point about the "scarcity" of public airwaves on AM radio is a red herring (I thought I'd throw that in there just for you).

Ahh, that would explain your confusion when I use the term. You apparently think it means "accurate".

It is a scientific fact that AM broadcast spectrum is limited. It is an observable fact that it is scarce, at least in some markets. I will refer you again to one of my first posts, where I pointed out the FCC stopped allowing "clear channel" stations because they were running out of available spectrum in some markets. If you think you have evidence to the contrary, please share.

The only way that the "scarcity of public airwaves would play a role is if every single airwave (or whatever) is taken up and there are no stations available to play liberal radio shows.

Sorry, I don't accept that premise at all. The public interest is served by actually having fair and balanced broadcasting, not by potentially having it.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

See above.

If no one wants to put a liberal show on the air, it doesn't matter if there is only one station thats not being used, or a million stations that aren't being used. The "scarcity" has nothing to do with it. The opportunity is there for liberal radio shows, its up to the liberals to take advantage of that opportunity and put their shows on. The problem is that no one wants to listen to liberals on the radio, for whatever reason. You can force stations to play liberal shows all you want, but you can't force people to listen to it, so whats the point?

Again, I reject your premise. You are trying to shift the burden of fairness to the "liberals" instead of the broadcaster profiting from our public airwaves. That's an absurd suggestion, especially since real-world politics aren't nearly so binary. There's more to politics than "liberal" and "conservative". Where do the others fit in your model?

The fairness doctrine is censorship, and it will force conservatives off the air. This point has been made and you ignore it, or call it a strawman, red herring, etc.. If all of a stations air time is full, someone will have to be taken off the air to air the liberal show, that people aren't going to listen to anyways.

Or they can run shorter shows, or they can rotate shows, or they can host shows jointly, or they can find another station, or they can use any of the other media available. While everyone has a right to have their soapboxes, they aren't entitled to have their soapboxes on the public airwaves. The station owners -- not the government -- will decide who to broadcast, how much time each show gets, and how to balance their content to provide fair and balanced information. It will not be the government censoring anyone; it will be businessmen making business decisions within an established regulatory framework ... just like all other businesses.

(Once again, I already addressed this point. The fact you don't agree with me doesn't mean I didn't address it.)

Again, if you truly are concerned about what is in the best interest of the public, you should be fighting for fairness on cable tv, internet, newspapers, and in the movies, since many more people are effected by that than they are AM radio. You have already acknowledged that the government does need to regulate these private entities when you agreed that child porn and rape would not be acceptable on cable tv and in the movies. It doesn't make sense why you would be so concerned about the smallest media outlet if you truly are just concerned with whats in the best interest of the public.

You're repeating yourself and you're ignoring my previous answers.

BTW, yes, you have said that the fairness doctrine should apply to all broadcast, not just AM, I was not talking about that in my previous post so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

As Craig234 shows, you are the one who brought it up again. I was answering you.

I am talking about all forms of media. Unless you are saying that you think that it should apply to all public and private forms of broadcast, but you have made arguments against it applying to private entities so I doubt that.

I'll just quote myself: "With extremely narrow exceptions, freedom of speech outweighs competing public interests when it comes to private media."

So, show me these liberals that are trying to start up radio stations but they can't because there aren't any available stations and I'll concede that you might have a point. Until you can do that, it remains quite obvious that this is targeted at conservatives.

Addressed above. Your argument is a straw man, and that does NOT mean "accurate" either.

 

[shrumpage]

Or they can run shorter shows, or they can rotate shows, or they can host shows jointly, or they can find another station, or they can use any of the other media available. While everyone has a right to have their soapboxes, they aren't entitled to have their soapboxes on the public airwaves. The station owners -- not the government -- will decide who to broadcast, how much time each show gets, and how to balance their content to provide fair and balanced information. It will not be the government censoring anyone; it will be businessmen making business decisions within an established regulatory framework ... just like all other businesses.

I love this!

The government won't censor any one, but if a station doesn't comply with government approved "CONTENT" they will be fined, or out of business. But its not censorship.

Making it so you can not present your ideas, enforced by the government, IS censorship.

And who decides the issue: What is balance?

Micheal Meved Dedicates an hour supporting the immergration bill - He is a conservative.
Micheal Savage Dedicates an hour condeming the immergration bill - He is also conservative.

Would that be considered balance?

I also wonder if Boston Legal will have to be reduced to 30 minutes to allow counter view points. Or will the counter point have to run after, but it is worse time slot...not prime time...hmmmm.

Or will the producer just do the easy thing, and drop all realivate political content from his show.

 

[shrumpage]

How would the fairness doctrine apply to religous stations? Hate to see people trying to balance various view points on the bible.

 

[ProfJohn]

It is nice to know that the Democratic Party now believes in government censorship.

They complain like hell about the NSA and wire tap programs that affect a few thousand people, but see nothing wrong with a program that will affect millions of Americans.
If this thing is put back in place I would expect every civil rights organization in the country to fight it.

Make all the excuses you want about it Bow, at the end of the day the government has to be involved and therefore it is government censorship.

Using your ?call and complain? theory if 50,000 people complain that a station is to biased and the radio stations response is ?screw you guys? then the government will have to take action, or else the program will be meaningless.

BTW your whole ?call and complain? idea is stupid. You can be 100% sure that the moveon.org and dailykos? of the world will be going after radio stations they object to via mass e-mails etc. You?ll have people in California calling to complain about a radio station in Texas etc.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is nice to know that the Democratic Party now believes in government censorship.

It is sad to know that you still can't engage in honest discussion.

They complain like hell about the NSA and wire tap programs that affect a few thousand people, but see nothing wrong with a program that will affect millions of Americans.

Yes, because the secret invasion of privacy from domestic spying is so comparable to an openly-disclosed requirement that broadcasters serve the public interest with balanced programming. Oh, the horror! :roll:

If this thing is put back in place I would expect every civil rights organization in the country to fight it.

OK. Should pose quite a dilemma for the right-wing supremes. Which master will they serve?

Make all the excuses you want about it Bow, at the end of the day the government has to be involved and therefore it is government censorship.

You can redefine "censorship" 'til you blow a vein, but you'll still be wrong. The government does not decide who gets to speak or what they get to say. The station owners do that. The government's role is ensuring that whatever the station owners decide, the end result must be reasonably balanced.

Using your ?call and complain? theory if 50,000 people complain that a station is to biased and the radio stations response is ?screw you guys? then the government will have to take action, or else the program will be meaningless.

Another straw man, I never suggested the government would not take action. I simply refuted your absurd insinuation that we'd need an army of goverment employees listening to every station. It's just not true.

BTW your whole ?call and complain? idea is stupid.

Thanks. Coming from you, I'll take that as confirmation it's a solid, sensible plan with great prospects for success. Your track record with the crystal ball has been almost as bad as Bush's.

You can be 100% sure that the moveon.org and dailykos? of the world will be going after radio stations they object to via mass e-mails etc. You?ll have people in California calling to complain about a radio station in Texas etc.

High comedy, indeed. It is the right, specifically the religious right, that regularly swarm in lockstep to impose their moral hang-ups on others. (E.g., the highly-coordinated "outrage" at a fuzzy flash of Janet Jackson's boob. I'm sure many of them had to rewind their TiVos dozens of times in order to become sufficiently offended.)

Most folks on the left are more inclined to take a "whatever" attitude, changing the station instead of trying to suppress alternative views. While there would no doubt be some attempts to coordinate complaints on the left, they will be largely ineffective, just as they've always been. Further, given the FCC is in the pockets of the industry, only the most flagrant violations will receive so much as a slap on the wrist.


By the way, while I find your sky-is-falling predictions entertaining, you continue to ignore the FACT that the Fairness Doctrine worked for years without your doomsday scenarios ever coming to pass. You need to trash your crystal ball and start learning a little history.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

By the way, while I find your sky-is-falling predictions entertaining, you continue to ignore the FACT that the Fairness Doctrine worked for years without your doomsday scenarios ever coming to pass. You need to trash your crystal ball and start learning a little history.

You have totally ignored how radio operated under the fairness doctrine. There is more debate, more ideas, more opinion on the air now then there was 30 years ago. I can list off the top of my head a dozen political talk radio hosts on the air today all with audiences in the millions.

Can name the top talk radio person during the fairness doctrine?'

Here is something i came across while reading up on the fairness doctrine:

Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo

It dealt with a law that forced a paper's to be 'fair' and allow a reply to content.

Justice Burger noted, however, that the law ?exacts a penalty on the basis of the content? of the paper. The penalty would be the time, materials, and newspaper space required to publish a candidate's reply. As a result, ?editors might well conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy. Therefore?political and electoral coverage would be blunted or reduced.?

hmmmmm a "fairness" doctrine where the judges admit it will lessen political and electoral coverage.



This illistrates what i don't like about liberalism, its the thinking: "you don't know what is best for you, we do!" Millions of people listen to talk radio, they like it, they tune in everyday.

But these people don't know what is best for them to listen too, the government must decide.