Reply
Fri 4 Jul, 2008 06:25 am
Another one of those issues like gun control which has the potential to bring about a second civil war; IOW if this monstrosity ever passes, there's really nothing left to lose:
http://www.crushingchris.com/blog/?p=60
Quote:
What is the Fairness Doctrine?
It’s NOT about fairness
It is a government plan to censor talk radio and Christian radio
FCC regulation that requires broadcasting stations to air both sides of a controversial issue
Reduces, rather than encourages discussion of controversial issues of public importance
While in effect, broadcasters limited controversial programming in fear of government sanction and administrative and legal expenses
Equal time would be provided free of charge, becoming costly to broadcasting licensees, who would eventually drop popular shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham
In fact, Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under John F. Kennedy, admitted to CBS News producer Fred Friendly that “our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”
Christian radio programs would be threatened as Christian beliefs such as sexuality, marriage, parental responsibility, and the sanctity of human life are considered controversial, or even hate speech
Should be left to the free market – equal opportunity, not equal results
In 1974, the Supreme Court found that the Fairness Doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate in Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Torino
In 1984, the Supreme Court found that the Fairness Doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate in FCC v. League of Women Voters
Original version was abolished by the FCC in 1987 because:
It didn’t serve the public interest
There was no longer a scarcity of media
It was in violation of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . .)
The FCC’s abolishment was upheld by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993
Result would be a return to a liberal monopoly of the airwaves, with no free exchange of ideas
Why act now?
The Fairness Doctrine violates your First Amendment right to free speech
Supporters in Congress are in violation of their Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
House Speaker Pelosi said that the Broadcaster Freedom Act will not receive a vote because “the interest of [her] caucus is in reverse.”
The President controls the FCC – the Obama administration could reinstate it themselves
Most likely looking at an even bigger Democrat majority – defeating the Fairness Doctrine will be much more difficult
Discharge Petition
Currently has 196 of the 218 signatures needed to force an up-or-down vote
Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN): “When freedom gets an up-or-down vote in the People’s House, freedom always wins.”
309 members of the House voted for a one-year moratorium on funds for the Fairness Doctrine in 2007, including many Democrats
However, not one Democrat has signed the discharge petition
Free speech?
Stations get exclusive control over a frequency. They get it for free with a promise to serve the public good.
If they aren't required to give both sides of the issue then they should be restricted to owning only ONE station in a market. Yes, that is ONE. The speech is NOT free when one company can buy every station and ONLY give out one side of an issue.
The AM band is nearly infinite. Typically, in the D.C. area, on that near infinite band, we have exactly one talk radio station, WMAL, which airs Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark levin and a couple of others who you might call conservative talk radio hosts.
I mean, it's almost like the basic density of space in our galaxy, i.e. one star the size of our sun or Alpha Centauri every four or five light years or so. There are fifty AM stations which are little more than glorified short-wave broadcasters, and libtards could buy any of them to set up their own talk shows or apply for a license on some unused part of the band but, NO, they want half of WMAL for free.
Like I say, you're going to wake up some morning with another civil war going on around you and wonder why...
gungasnake wrote:The AM band is nearly infinite.
Infinite might be the number of subjects you don't understand even remotely.
The AM band is NOT infinite. 520-1610khz is not an infinite radio frequency when you restrict broadcasts to 10 khz intervals and broadcast ranges so they don't interfere with other signals on the same frequency. Strong AM signals can cover a large area, especially at night which then restricts other stations from broadcasting where there signal would overlap.
The introduction of HD radio on the AM band doesn't make more stations available because HD radio can use up to 30khz of bandwidth to broadcast.
Basic bottom line is that we only have the one conservative AM station in the entire DC area and that's probably typical.
parados wrote:Free speech?
Stations get exclusive control over a frequency. They get it for free with a promise to serve the public good.
If they aren't required to give both sides of the issue then they should be restricted to owning only ONE station in a market. Yes, that is ONE. The speech is NOT free when one company can buy every station and ONLY give out one side of an issue.
No one should ever be forced to muzzle his opinions. Imposing a maximum number of stations one entity can control I could live with.
parados wrote:Free speech?
Stations get exclusive control over a frequency. They get it for free with a promise to serve the public good.
If they aren't required to give both sides of the issue then they should be restricted to owning only ONE station in a market. Yes, that is ONE. The speech is NOT free when one company can buy every station and ONLY give out one side of an issue.
Free Enterprise is the issue. Advertisors pay the freight and will buy ad time when people listen.
Air America has it's shot and no one listened.
Most liberals don't listen to talk radio; we just catch up with it on the internet in order to keep current with what the nuts are saying. I know when I get into a car the last thing I want to listen to is someone yacking away a bunch of crap. I would much rather listen to music.
As for this idea of fairness doctrine; it does seem a little like censorship to me. But then I think the whole FCC is one big censorship a majority of the time.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace