Democrats want to limit free speech, again.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

No. Fox news is not fair and talk radio is not fair. Because, well, they don't always kiss the Democrats ass and they don't like that one bit.

If they do pull this off they will only drive more people to Fox News and Conservative Satelite Radio and Internet broadcasting.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

If they do pull this off they will only drive more people to Fox News and Conservative Satelite Radio and Internet broadcasting.

At least there are options now. But as Rush said a long time ago "40-60 million people a day listen to me. Why would I go to a subscription service that only has 3-5 million listeners?"

[Scrum]

I love how anyone that doesn't think this is a free speech issue must agree with the law. It's horseshit and so is this law.


Wake up guys. This is not limiting speech in any way. It's a regulation on business.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I love how anyone that doesn't think this is a free speech issue must agree with the law. It's horseshit and so is this law.


Wake up guys. This is not limiting speech in any way. It's a regulation on business.

abc broadcasts on public airwaves, should there be a limit on viewpoints there too?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Hey, Slavery was legal once also. Does that mean it's ok to bring it back?

Slavery? Really?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Slavery? Really?

I thought liberals weren't for the status quo?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrum

It's a regulation on business.

Oh, well that makes it all better then..........

[motivez]

I just think the comparison to Slavery is alot like

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

I just think the comparison to Slavery is alot like

how about obscenity laws then?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

abc broadcasts on public airwaves, should there be a limit on viewpoints there too?

They don't broadcast Conservative Republican Viewpoints!


Well, not much!



This remind me of when I stopped watching Cspan. I thought here is an objective network giving public access to what goes on in Washington D.C.
Then they started to have talk shows and phone lines. They were pure Democratic "first come first served." Then the complaints came in. Too many of what were called "Rush Limbaugh" callers! Not Fair shouted the crybabies!

So they scrapped the one phone line and now go back and forth from a Conservative Republican line to a Liberal Democrat Line to a Independent Line no matter how many people phone in from each group to be heard.

I can't take pathetic garbage like that so I tuned them out!

If you don't like what you hear on talk radio try and do the same!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

I just think the comparison to Slavery is alot like

He is just suggesting that legal does not make it right or good!


Or did you Liberals forget that all of the sudden?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

He is just suggesting that legal does not make it right or good!

Or did you Liberals forget that all of the sudden?

No need to make broad generalizations aimed at other users

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

abc broadcasts on public airwaves, should there be a limit on viewpoints there too?

No.


I disagree with this law totally, but it's not a speech issue.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrum

No.


I disagree with this law totally, but it's not a speech issue.

I'm glad to hear that, and I understand what you are saying. But the Democrats that want to do this KNOW that it could cripple talk radio and I'm sure they are hoping it will make it much less a force for them to worry about.

[DosEquis]

I also disagree with the law because of enforcement issues, but it is most definitely not a speech violation. People should be against it because it regulates business and free market competition. Using the freedom of speech as justification against it is just a political tool to try to paint those who support this as someone who doesn't respect the constitution. If these same people are those who still support the president, they can shut the f- up when it comes to the constitution. Maybe we should pass this and use terrorism as a justification, then it would be ok.

I agree with the law when it comes to the honest intentions behind it. I do think that there should be a counter voice to those of Rush and Hannity. Unfortunately, I doubt honest intentions are the real motivation behind the law. Though I do not believe they want to silence conservative radio I think they want to try to marginalize its affectiveness by forcing a radio station to provide both view points.

This isn't about democrats thinking people are too dumb to think for themselves. The irony behind that is these programs like hannity, rush, and orielly, are conservatives telling other conservatives what to think. Who can't think for themselves here?

Hannity, Rush, Orielly, etc are all very powerful voices and I am not sure why they are so powerful as they are just as qualified to make political commentary as anyone else on this board.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

This isn't about democrats thinking people are too dumb to think for themselves. The irony behind that is these programs like hannity, rush, and orielly, are conservatives telling other conservatives what to think. Who can't think for themselves here?

Ok, re-read this and tell that you didn't just contradict yourself.

[Rouger2]

They should just let radio have programs that make them money and leave them alone. You know talk radio is really not worth all this attention.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Ok, re-read this and tell that you didn't just contradict yourself.

I did contradict myself based upon what i typed. It was a shitty way trying to explain that conservatives are trying to tell other conservatives what to think... not democrats trying tell conservatives what to think... though thats what democrats are accused of when they are trying (good intentions or not) to get equal air time.

[Stylerod]

House Proposes Ban on Fairness Doctrine Funding - TVWeek - News

The House of Representatives moved today to ban the Federal Communications Commission from reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to offer competing viewpoints in a balanced manner when presenting controversial issues.

The House inserted a ban on government spending in behalf of the doctrine into an appropriations bill, acting at the urging of GOP conservatives. Democrats charged the move was "a political stunt" aimed at quieting unwarranted conservative talk-show hosts' fears that the doctrine could return. The legislation was awaiting a final vote at press time.

Democrats admitted some concern about the lack of balance on talk radio, but said there was no immediate prospect for the Fairness Doctrine's revival.

"It's long since gone by the board because of court decisions and various FCC decisions," said House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, D-Wis., who readily accepted the GOP amendment, then saw conservatives spend half an hour rising to praise it. He called the move "another political exercise" intended to fix fears coming from "talk radio and yap-yap TV."

"I want to see the real Rush [Limbaugh]. I want folks like him to be exposed to American audiences in all his bloviated glory. Let right-wing radio go on just as they do now. ... Rush and Sean [Hannity] are just as important as ... Paris Hilton. I would hate to see government moderate it to give them an ounce of credibility," Rep. Obey said.

The amendment was proposed by U.S. Reps. Mike Pence, R-Ind.; Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; and Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas. They acted after Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., endorsed the doctrine's revival and Matt Drudge's Drudge Report Web site featured a clip of what turned out to be a months-old interview in which Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry also endorsed it.

Aides to Sen. Kerry and Sen. Durbin said neither senator is sponsoring legislation. An aide to Sen. Feinstein said she has directed staff to look at the possible changes to the communications law "to ensure there is a degree of fairness," but that she has no active proposal.

House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, chairman of one of its panels, also have talked of holding hearings.

Conservatives today called the Fairness Doctrine outmoded.

"As kids say, this doctrine is so 20th-century," said Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

"If the Fairness Doctrine is put back in place, you will silence the public," said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who owns a radio station.

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., called any plan to reintroduce it "a bald-faced attack on free speech. Proponents don't like what they hear on the radio. The content of radio and television shows should be directed by station managers, not the government."

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., said Republican conservatives on the air acknowledge what they stand for.

"The difference is that Rush Limbaugh knows and admits he is a conservative. Dan Rather and Katie Couric don't admit they are liberals," he said.

Rep. Pence said today's amendment will send "a deafening message" that Congress doesn't want the doctrine reinstated.

Good. Steps need to be taken to make sure the Democrats can't reinstate it. But this is curious. This is from the story above:


Democrats admitted some concern about the lack of balance on talk radio, but said there was no immediate prospect for the Fairness Doctrine's revival.

"It's long since gone by the board because of court decisions and various FCC decisions," said House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, D-Wis., who readily accepted the GOP amendment, then saw conservatives spend half an hour rising to praise it. He called the move "another political exercise" intended to fix fears coming from "talk radio and yap-yap TV."


Yet another story today says:

Taylor Marsh asked about the Fairness Doctrine and Rep. Spence's amendment to prohibit enforcement of the fairness doctrine on conservative talk radio. Speaker Pelosi said this will not come to the floor, that she is solidly behind bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archi...t_with_spe.htm

It seems someone is lying.