First Amendment not infringed by two sides policy | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
I'm certainly not a proponent (none / 0)
Of the fairness doctrine but I do love watching the RWingnuts try an explain how giving the "second" side the chance to present their POV somehow restricts the "first" side's freedom of speech. Evidently RWingnuts can only speak freely in a vacuum.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 03/17/2009 12:58:19 AM EST

I hear you (none / 0)
Thanks Robrob:


I'm not too much for the Fairness Doctrine either, but I take my shots when there's an opening.  For example (much like your's) I love it when they get red-faced angry when somebody mentions the FD and how they themselves are not "pure" nor "good examples of "...good Americans" protecting the First Amendment. 


When they get into an argument with a lefty over it, they find out just how much they compromise the First A themselves.

And, thanks to you too, "Gotchange."

by Lennilenape on 03/17/2009 01:17:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This forum (none / 0)
does not belong to the people of the United States the way the radio bands do.

by jarett on 03/17/2009 10:42:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jarret is trying to teach you (none / 0)
what a raving wanker you are

and you are such limbaugh butt boy you dont see it.

You arent going to control anything beyond your own bowel movements and that is probably iffy.

You think someone at the college level needs advice from YOU?

You really DONT get it do you?

You are so ignorant on the subject.. let me help you out.

  1. its a myth that limbaugh has 20 million listeners.. no one has 20 million listeners no one ever will. He seems to be the one promoting that number. There are no credible sources to back it up. On an aside Limbaugh is not liked, he has a 17% approval rating. Its always that whacked out 17% isnt it? The ones that still support Bush.

  2. The fairness doctrine is D O A  regardless if a right wing nut ball can cite a couple Senators who want it back. Its not going to happen there is no support for it in the White House or the congress. Its a bogy man the conservatives like to use.

  3. Individual freedom has nothing to do with giant corporations trying to buy every radio  and tv outlet in a market .

  4. its a myth that the "free market" dictates who is on the radio and who is not. There are PLENTY of conservative radio hosts that suck and are not doing well ratings wise being carried on the back of the station owner. Because  the owner IE Clear Channel for example is hell bent on spreading an ideological message.

The only FAIR thing to do is change the way that business is done and not allow any one corporation to own all the media outlets in any given city. Promote diversity.

But I suspect you arent really concerned with fairness . You want your message spread.

I personally like the right wing talkers. Look at the results of the last couple of elections? Whats not to like?

:)


by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2009 03:35:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yawn (none / 0)
"The radio bands no longer belong to the people of the United States than do internet bandwidth."

And case law aside, what evidence do you offer other than opinion?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 03/19/2009 12:03:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If anyone was going to educate themselves (none / 0)
 On the bill of rights..they definately shouldnt use the right wing libertarian cato institute to do it.

Those whack jobs believe that public libraries are socialism and drunk driving should not be punishable because it infringes on a persons privacy.

try again


by Chinese Democracy on 03/19/2009 10:28:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken, no. (none / 0)
The internet is a fundamentally different medium from licensed broadcasts.  The two are only barely comparable.  Saying that those who are licensed to broadcast must serve the public in some way is entirely reasonable.  Saying that every host on the internet must do the same in the same way is completely absurd if you understand ANYTHING about the infrastructure of either.

by jarett on 03/19/2009 09:05:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You keep saying it (none / 0)
But don't seem to ever explain how you think the fairness doctrine will limit free speech?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 03/20/2009 12:19:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sweet! (none / 0)

"Democrats won't touch the Fairness Doctrine"

Great!  Problem solved!  Commence shutting up about it.

by Spencer on 03/20/2009 02:39:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Funny (none / 0)
In all that "preaching" you still have yet to explain how you think the fairness doctrine will restrict Limbaugh's freedom of speech.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 03/21/2009 07:32:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]

First Amendment not infringed by two sides policy | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)