The Fairness Doctrine was a planned pursuit of the FCC so that all major media hosts had to mention both at negative and positive about someone i.e. Nancy Pelosi if they wanted to say anything at all.
Oh, that doesn't sound much like the ACTUAL fairness doctrine which used to exist. Per Wikipedia:
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced
It had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi at all. You need to start researching things in more depth before spouting off about them if you want to discuss political stuff here, because junior-level **** like this doesn't cut it.
The plan was shot down as it was unconstitutional.
Oh, was it?
Once again, from Wikipedia:
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. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.
You are full of **** once again. The SC specifically upheld the Fairness Doctrine in this and other cases.
My post was not saying there was such a thing as the fairness doctrine. Moreover, I meant that there should not even be such a thing considered by the government.
I don't think you understand what the Fairness Doctrine even is, let alone are qualified to say whether or not the government should be considering such things.
With this very rough conversation I say that our right to free speech should not be curbed. If I want to say the f word on public television I very well should be able to.
I agree with this, you should be able to curse all you want.
If I wanted to run my telephone at 900 Ghz I should be able to.
I disagree with this, because your use of that bandwidth has effects which reach beyond your personal phone conversation. Bandwidth in the wireless spectrum is a shared resource, not your personal toy. It needs to be regulated or nothing works correctly.
I could get service in a CAVE. But the FCC feels otherwise. Instead they limit bandwidth and other things to a "standard". If they had any sense they'd let private entities manage everything and the government would just go back to making roads.
Haha, yeah, that'd be a great idea, watching private companies fight it out for bandwidth, over-riding each others' signals all the time. You obviously haven't thought this through much.
I mean really, who wants to pave their own roads. I don't mind paying a nominal tax for defense or roads; but national healthcare, FCC, many other controlling government entities, nah. I'll pass.
You don't get a choice in the matter. You pay up your taxes just like everyone else, and if you don't like what they are spending them on, work to elect people who change those priorities.