4
   

DeMint to force vote on "fairness" doctrine

 
 
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 11:12 am
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090219171331.aspx

Quote:

Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine
Sen. Jim DeMint plans to introduce amendment on D.C. Voting Rights bill to prevent FCC from censoring talk radio.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
2/20/2009 9:30:10 AM

Although a spokesman for President Barack Obama said the administration wouldn’t pursue the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, S.C., wants Senate Democrats to go on the record one way or another on the issue.


DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said on Feb. 19 he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill next week. The Broadcaster Freedom Act was introduced by Republican lawmakers last month and prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.


“I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it,” DeMint said. “With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?”


In 1985, the FCC determined that the Fairness Doctrine was no longer necessary due to the emergence of a “multiplicity of voices in the marketplace.” The FCC was also of the view that the Fairness Doctrine may have violated the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. Twice, Congress has passed legislation restoring the Fairness Doctrine, but Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush vetoed the bills.


Although the Obama administration has come out publicly saying they would not pursue the Fairness Doctrine, several prominent Democrats have. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said it was“absolutely time to pass a standard.” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, came out with a similar message, saying, “We need the Fairness Doctrine back.” And former President Bill Clinton said, “You either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side.”

Perhaps one of the more egregious examples came from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., in an interview with Jim Villanucci for KOB Radio in Albuquerque, N.M.


“I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum],” Bingaman said last October.


Another potential victim of the Fairness Doctrine, beyond political talk, is Christian radio. Republican politicians and Christian radio industry experts recently warned the revival of the Fairness Doctrine would make Christian radio the most vulnerable since there is already judicial precedence supporting the FCC authority to regulate it.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 3,069 • Replies: 47
No top replies

 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 11:27 am
Good. Let's see if the democrats really want to silence free speech.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 12:36 pm
@Woiyo9,
I'll say it again. In the D.C. region out of the entire AM and FM bands available we have exactly one AM station, WMAL, which features your syndicated conservative talk hosts including Rush, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and one or two others.

Libtards should understand that they **** with that situation at the risk of starting a second civil war.
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 02:30 pm
@gungasnake,
I would be very happy to see the Obamaites try to censor conservative and Christian radio. I am sure of several outcomes:

1. Continued commentary by conservative TV, Conservative magazines and conservative nespapers and blogs reminding watchers and readers of who exactly was responsible

2.Thousands of letters and phone calls to Congressmen, especially those House and Senate members running in November 2010.

3. The leftwing House and Senate members have probably never seen the door to door campaign that would ensue if and when the radio broadcast regulations were passed.

So, Gungasnake, I would be very happy to see the regulations passed. It would materially reduce the Democratic hold on the House and Senate.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 03:21 pm
@gungasnake,
gunga said
Quote:
Libtards should understand that they **** with that situation at the risk of starting a second civil war.


if a war is what you're looking for enlist and go to afghanistan, you cowardly little cock sucker. they'll give you a new rifle and free bullets.
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 03:33 pm
@kuvasz,
Gee, gungasnake,you have been rebutted! But, you should realize that you have been rebutted with incontrovertible evidence based on rational and considered thought. It reminds me of the command of the language held by the immortal Winston Churchill----How can it be matched for lucidity, tone, and import?



But, I know, gungasnake, that you would never put your life on the line for a fake like Obama,so Kuvasz's suggestion is up in smoke.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 03:37 pm
A number of the Democrats, including our entire congressional delegation from New Mexico--most especially Jeff Bingamon, the senior senator--are on on the record as favoring the 'fairness doctrine', as is Pelosi, Reid, and other influential members of Congress and as is Bill Clinton.

President Obama, however, apparently recently said that he opposes bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. I don't believe for a minute that he wouldn't enact it today if he thought it would not be a political liability, but his opinion a) gains him political points with fence sitters and freedom of speech lovers and b) gives cover to those Democrats who can please their constituencies by supporting the Fairness Doctrine without having to actually act on it.

The problems with the fairness doctrine of course are rampant:

1) Some 50+ million Americans, at least, enjoy listening to talk radio for at least brief periods during the week. As liberal talk radio has been a miserable failure in most markets, enactment of the Fairness Doctrine would close down talk radio almost universally and incur the wrath of all those voters. And most are voters and our elected leaders know that.

2) The practical difficulty in assessing what is 'conservative' and what is 'liberal' in determining a fair balance. Who gets to decide that? What criteria do they use?

I would say that liberal talk radio should not be blocked from the airways and that should any promoter of a show be able to bring sufficient advertisers to be viable, a radio station should have to accept the program if there isn't such a program already featured. But what radio station would turn down ANY viable programming that brought sufficient advertisers? The station managers might despise Limbaugh, but since he claims the #1 market share in virtually every market where he is featured, they aren't going to sneer at those numbers.

But let the market decide and not the politicians please. I vote for protecting the First Amendment.

kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 03:37 pm
@genoves,
consider the source, maggot you have been thrown off of this site numerous times and return only because your mental illness drives you to seek approval by those whom you know to better than you.
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 03:53 pm
@kuvasz,
Oh, dear, Kuvasz is upset. His anger has gotten the best of him--First he calls gungasnake a horrible name and then, after I upbraid him for that,he responds in anger. It can only be anger which leads him to write

"only because your mental illness drives you to seek approval by those whom you know to better than you"

Oh, dear--Is that a Freudian slip? "You know to better than you"????

You really ought to calm down, Kuvasz. Your anger is interfering with your ability to write coherently.

I really must say that I do not need your approval. My friends could always write clearly.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 04:20 pm
@genoves,
I do seem to have gotten the boy's attention.....
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 04:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
Another problem is that libtards don't really talk all that much; they just sort of sit there and squeel and holler and slobber and froth at the mouth and what not and keeping an audience more than about two minutes doing that is hard.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 04:27 pm
@gungasnake,
Yes, gungasnake and his inarticulate rage shows that he and the left wing are fuming because some dare to say that they will continue to make logical critiques.

As I pointed out in my first post, Obama's handlers may be aware that they will unleash a unwanted torrent of focused opposition to any "fairness"bill. The smart ones know that the gains( if any) they may make in enacting the "fairness" bill will be dwarfed by the intense opposition it will muster in the next election in 2010.
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 04:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
You have it well worked out, Foxfyre. If the fairness doctrine( which, I must confess, I cannot see such a piece of legislation not being found unconstitutional, no matter how it is done) is passed, I wonder if the ACLU, which has always been the defender of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech section,would enter into the fray as the defender of Freedom of Speech.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 05:04 pm
@genoves,
I'm thinking that you completely misread what Gunga said and intended.
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 05:10 pm
@Foxfyre,
I don't think so, Foxfyre, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

Read below and help see what gungasnake really meant.


1 Reply report Fri 20 Feb, 2009 12:36 pm Re: Woiyo9 (Post 3578153)
I'll say it again. In the D.C. region out of the entire AM and FM bands available we have exactly one AM station, WMAL, which features your syndicated conservative talk hosts including Rush, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and one or two others.

Libtards should understand that they **** with that situation at the risk of starting a second civil war.
*********************************************************************
2 Replies
Previous • Post: # 3,578,267 • Next genoves

1 Reply report Fri 20 Feb, 2009 02:30 pm Re: gungasnake (Post 3578194)
I would be very happy to see the Obamaites try to censor conservative and Christian radio. I am sure of several outcomes:

1. Continued commentary by conservative TV, Conservative magazines and conservative nespapers and blogs reminding watchers and readers of who exactly was responsible

2.Thousands of letters and phone calls to Congressmen, especially those House and Senate members running in November 2010.

3. The leftwing House and Senate members have probably never seen the door to door campaign that would ensue if and when the radio broadcast regulations were passed.

So, Gungasnake, I would be very happy to see the regulations passed. It would materially reduce the Democratic hold on the House and Senate.

********************************************************************

My answer, Foxfyre, to Gungasnake was MY interpretation of what a"Second civil war" would translate into.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 05:24 pm
Quote:
The Senate voted Thursday 87-11 to prevent the FCC from reinstating the fairness doctrine, not that the FCC had indicated plans to do so.

The vote was on an amendment, itself amended, to an unrelated bill, the D.C. Voting Rights Act.


Looks like the vast majority of Dems voted against it, proving that this was nothing but a bullshit issue to begin with.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 07:44 am
@Cycloptichorn,
As usual, the Democrats use a sneaky back door method to try and surpress free speech and attach this bullshit amendment to the DC Voting Act.

"The Senate passed a Broadcaster Freedom Amendment to a D.C. voting rights bill on Thursday by a vote of 87-11. But Democrats countered with an amendment that seeks to promote “diversity” in media ownership.

The Broadcaster Freedom Amendment prevents the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would requires equal time for the expression of different political viewpoints on the public airwaves. Radio stations that run conservative talks shows, for example, would be required to allot equal time for liberal talk shows " or, more likely, stop airing the conservative shows altogether."

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44227

Why should we expect politicians, especially Democrats to be honest?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 07:52 am
@Woiyo9,
How about we just pass a bill that whenever a talk radio or TV program has a guest or a host that presents something that is factually untrue the station carrying that program has to pay a five cent fine?

It would serve 2 purposes. It would require truth from BOTH sides and probably balance our budget in the short term.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 08:49 am
@parados,
I like the idea.

However, how would we really know if either side is telling the truth?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 09:23 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
. . . at the risk of starting a second civil war.


Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

God, conservative hysteria cracks me up . . .

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

-- C. Little
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DeMint to force vote on "fairness" doctrine
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/22/2019 at 04:25:14