03/16/2009 09:47:18 PM EST

First Amendment not infringed by two sides policy

posted by Lennilenape

Every righty from leadership on down to radio listeners are going to hear the same "hate messages" by Limbaugh and his co-radio hosts from all parts of the US despite a "freedom to hear" the 'two sides to every story' policy installed by our government. 

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Nobody knows why the righties, including those who comment here, are so afraid of a national policy requiring radio shows to at least try to get the other side of an analysis of a lefty comment or a "Bill" put forward by the Democrats.

They (the Limbaughs and Savages) still get to spread their swill at length.  They won't tell their listeners that.  They (righty radio announcers) complain they will be silenced.  In deed they will get to offer more not less by providing both sides of a story.

They (the right wing radio announcers) themselves are infringing the intent of the "First Amendment" by silencing the other side of a story.

They (the Hannity and Limbaugh bunch) had nothing but praise as the last administration tore away at the entire Constitution one amendment after another -- not a word of caution did they deliver to their listeners that THEIR constitution was being seriously infringed and their government was not using the Constitution as their guide, but instead was being overlooked and were being guided by presidential writing notes.

Daily these far right wing talking heads spread hate, speak at length to devide the nation; including armed insurgency.  But they don't tell their listeners that either.  


  
< US Representative Abuses his Position to Foist Christianity on US citizens | TYT, Steele clip featured on CNN >
 Display:
First Amendment not infringed by two sides policy | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)
You're right that they don't even try (none / 0)
to show the other side of things, but there's nothing we can do and probably nothing we should do. The first amendment gives the KKK the right to have a parade in New York City if it wants (which happened, I believe in the 1920's, bob confirm?).

The Bill of Rights are our national principles. When your neighbor puts a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on their car you can't tell them they are wrong. It's a free country. 

by gotchange on 03/17/2009 12:40:47 AM EST

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.

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

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 ]
Good argument Robrob! (none / 0)
By your logic, the government should guarantee my right to participate in this forum, thereby forcing you to hear an alternative point of view.

We will amend the First Amendment to add the "right to be heard" to the "freedom of speech".

by KenTX on 03/17/2009 07:45:35 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 ]
You are wrong. (none / 0)
The radio bands no longer belong to the people of the United States than do internet bandwidth. If you're going to control the content of AM political talk radio, then I'm going to control the content of internet political dialogue. Jarett, I'm trying to teach you about the importance of individual freedom, and you just can't seem to grasp it.

by KenTX on 03/17/2009 11:10:49 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?

:)

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy

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?

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

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

[ Parent ]
Educate yourself. (none / 0)
If the government can control the content of AM talk radio, they can do the same thing to the internet.

You're inability to understand that the Bill of Rights was constructed to protect citizens from the government is indicative of your lack of education.

by KenTX on 03/19/2009 08:24:38 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

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy

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 ]
Free political speech (none / 0)
is constitutionally protected, regardless of the medium. Its why Democrats won't touch the Fairness Doctrine, even though they control the government. Its more of an attack on the constitution than court packing.

by KenTX on 03/19/2009 09:20:05 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?

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

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

[ Parent ]
"Fairness Doctrine limits free speech." (none / 0)
Is that just the opinion of KenTX, or is the position widely shared by media analysts and constitutional scholars? There is no shortage of people claiming the Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional. Just count the number of results when you google:
The Fairness Doctrine is a relic from the days before television, satellite, internet, cable, iPhone communication when the radio band was the only source of broadcast information, and there were restricted licenses to prevent interference of radio signals.

It will take a Supreme Court case to finally kill the Fairness Doctrine for all time, but until that happens, we can look for little clues:

  1. Liberals would howl with outrage if the same rules were applied to the internet.
  2. Obama opposes the Fairness Doctrine because the “unfairness” is obvious.
  3. Previous cases like Miami Herald v Tornillo ruled that Cenk is not required to share his microphone with KenTX, and Hannity is not required to share his show with Colmes.

by KenTX on 03/20/2009 08:51:55 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 ]
I don't know if you've noticed, (none / 0)
but Democrat lawmakers are the people who won't shut up about the Fairness Doctrine. And Democrat TYT participants won't shut up about it either. I view the subject as an opportunity to preach about the Bill of Rights.

by KenTX on 03/20/2009 07:58:46 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.

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

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

[ Parent ]
1ST AMENDMENT (none / 0)
Is that not the one that gives everyone freedom of speech. That means right wingers can have there show , A nd be on any side they want. Why is it that we need our government to say other wise. Dont they have biger things to do . If us dems dont like it ,Than we need to come up with more shows that say other wise.
Obama won there must be enough people to listen to left wing shows.
They can bury themselfs with there hate, So leave it alone. QUIT  trying to tell other people what to do , AND start some more left shows , Man our rights are our rights. for everyone, the Fd is the dumbist thing i ever herd of telling the shows what and how they run there own show.

by tuna on 03/17/2009 06:27:16 AM EST

2 sides policy DOES infringe on freedom of speech (none / 0)

OF COOOOOOURSE it does. Think of it this way, instead of a policy that forces private institutions and companies from expressing another "side" (as if there was only 1 other side), lets make a policy that every time an opinion is expressed it must be followed with "all hail our dear leader".... its esentially the same thing.  Any policy that forces anyone to express a predefined opinion is absolutly an infringment on the 1st amendment, but in a new and creative way. Instead of saying "you cant say this or that", they are mititgating anyones POV by forcing them to give equal time to a view/opinion that has nothing to do with the original intent.

 

If I wanted to say creationist are idiots and they should be laughed at nobody should listen to them, I shouldn't then have to sacrifice half my soap box time to recite their ridiculous points on how there are "holes" in evolution.

by Smokin on 03/17/2009 02:20:44 PM EST

I agree with Smokin (none / 0)

I'm no fan of "conservative" (re: neo-con) radio, but I really don't think that the Fairness Doctrine should be implemented; it establishes a really bad precedent.  Think about it:  should Hollywood have to make some Focus on the Family propaganda piece every time they release a film that's sympathetic to gay people?  Should Comedy Central be forced follow up The Daily Show and The Colbert Report with that god awful Half Hour News Hour?  And can you imagine the boost the Teach Both Sides of the Evolution "Controversy" group would get if the FD were made law?

Now, I understand that those situations aren't exactly the same but the principal is there.  If "conservatives" dominate the radio waves then good for them, let em have it.  Besides, radio is antiquated anyway, the future is in new media.

by RexT42 on 03/17/2009 06:56:41 PM EST

T Rex gets it. (none / 0)
Liberals dominate the internet. Conservatives dominate AM radio. To each his own. Why begrudge a bunch of old people the pleasure of listening to Maha Rushie?

by KenTX on 03/17/2009 09:14:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yea but no but ya but (none / 0)
ok go listen to limbaugh...as long as you dont parrot is talking points

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy

by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2009 09:49:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
+h his (none / 0)

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy

by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2009 09:49:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
+hiv (none / 0)

by KenTX on 03/17/2009 10:16:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hiv ? (none / 0)
Sorry to hear that closet case. I had a feeling you where not smart enough to be safe

:)

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy

by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2009 11:17:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Freedoms not permission to go beyond rationale (none / 0)
Hey RexT42:

I'm an ex-Marine.  I swore to uphold and protect the constitution just like a president does.  I fought for it and many gave their lives for it.  Never did I believe that free speech was meant to go beyond reason and decency.

Currently, the righty radios spurt talk of armed insurgency within the US, with Right against the Left; Republican against Democrat; Conservative against Liberal -- Most of all make concerted efforts to divide the United States.

Doesn't anyone think or believe these things are treasoness?  Even if righties got kicked off the air and bought cable to promote this stuff -- they still shouldn't be able to do it under the guise of "Free Speech."!

During elections (R) Radio mislead, distort and lie about a how a person can legally vote.  The Republican Party was able to designate Rush's radio show and Fox News as their top propagandists.  That righty listeners should listen to these two stations for official voting times and current up-dates.

I never fought for that.  I fought for people to come together under the Constitution; not use it to devide and use arms against each other.

Lenni 

by Lennilenape on 03/20/2009 05:21:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
First Amendment not infringed by two sides policy | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: