Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Unfairness Doctrine


Renewed calls for restoration of the  ‘fairness doctrine’  & the LibTard chorus chanting the mantra of   ‘civility’ followed the  recent  Arizona Massacre as flowers follow a spring rain.   Blood is the natural fertilizer of  idiotic demands for tyranny.

The heinous act was not solicited, prompted or suggested by ‘extremists’ shouting ‘hate filled’ rants on talk radio. It was not related to the recent political campaign season.  It was the independent act  of a lone gunman acting out his own fantasy.  Local law enforcement had several opportunities to prevent the slaughter. Now they cover their incompetence & misfeasance by falsely assigning blame to others who had nothing to do with the affair.

Remember Shrub’s ‘new tone in Washington’ ?  It was a single flute drowned out by dozens of braying jackasses.  ‘Chimpy McBush’, ‘Bush lied and thousands died’  etc.  There were a book and a movie about assassinating Shrub, both celebrated by the left.  Then there was Dan Rather’s infamous attack with spurious documents.

Does anyone remember a famous actor ranting about wanting to stone Congressman Henry Hyde to death?  Where was the outpouring of outrage over that blood thirsty rant?   There was note, because this issue is all one sided.

Hannity, Levin & Limbaugh spent several days replaying sound bytes of outrageous statements by president Obama and his cronies.  Those sound bytes fall on deaf ears.

The LibTards are determined to squelch opposition voices.  They don’t want tone control or volume control, they want content control.  Their demand is 180° out of phase with the First Amendment.  Political speech must be protected speech because representative government requires the adversary process of debate.

If they can’t get their way in the legislature or the courts, they will turn to regulation by fiat.  Thus we have the FCC’s recent ‘net neutrality’ ruling.  Ostensibly about preventing internet service providers from throttling competitor’s content, it is really about content control and raising revenue.  Incrementally, little by little, they will  expand the rules to regulate content.  At the same time they will impose fees to ‘cover the cost’ of enforcing the rules.

Advertisements

January 20, 2011 Posted by | Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness | 1 Comment

Kagan: HELL NO!!!


I just read  Can Kagan Be Trusted to Defend the Constitution? in which   Ross Kaminsky  assembles the critical pieces of the nominee’s attitude toward the First Amendment’s free speech clause. I want you to follow that link to Human Events

Kaminsky points out how Kagan’s arguments in important cases before  the  Supreme Court indicate an unacceptable lack of respect for the right of free expression.  Crucial quotes from a paper she wrote amplify that concern. I am glad that Kaminsky posted a link to the paper, because I clicked it and saw its title. “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine”  Since when do the ends justify the means?   This quote was found on page 55 of the paper.

The realm of public expression may have too much of some kinds of speech, too little of others; some speakers may drown out or dominate their opposite numbers. Self-conscious redistribution of expressive opportunities seems the most direct way of correcting these defects and achieving the appropriate range and balance of viewpoint.

President Obama spoke to the graduates  at Hampton University, giving us some clues.

And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter.  And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — (laughter) — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.  So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.

Perhaps outlining some crucial points will make things clear for you.

  • bombards us
    • all kinds of content
  • exposes us
    • all kinds of arguments
      • don’t always rank that high on the truth meter
  • information becomes a distraction
  • putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy

That is dictator speak for “I need  new laws to squelch my critics who are hampering my efforts to enslave you and cement my party in power.”  What is the relevance to Kagan’s screed?  Another outline is in order.

  • too much of some kinds of speech
  • drown out or dominate
  • redistribution of expressive opportunities
    • correcting these defects
      • appropriate
        • viewpoint.
          • range
          • balance

What do they have in common?  Arrogance!!  That single characteristic sticks out like a sore thumb.  We are bombarded with all kinds of arguments, which may be untrue, and become a distraction, putting pressure on our democracy.  There  is too much of some speech, drowning out and dominating others. The remedy is redistribution of expressive opportunities assuring appropriate range and balance of viewpoint.

The President and his latest nominee to the Supreme Court are two  nuts in a Socialist shell who seek legislation to  criminalize criticism of their policies.  That is exactly what the First Amendment is intended to prevent.

Those two nuts are not alone in that Socialist shell, they share it with Mark Lloyd,  Obama’s appointee to the FCC.  Three years ago, he co-authored
The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio“.  That screed asserts that there is too much Conservative speech on talk radio and suggests public policy changes to reduce Conservative speech, supplanting it with Socialist speech.

We are facing authoritarian demagogues who seek to overthrow our representative republic, replacing it with an autocracy.  First, they must silence the guard dogs.

There are not enough  Republicans in the Senate to block this nomination.  Worse yet, they lack the resolve required, they are caving in.  We have no recourse except to rise up and raise Hell.  We must send a clear message to our Senators: Kagan is not fit to sit on the court: your vote for this nomination guarantees my vote against you in the next election cycle.  Reverence for the rights enshrined in the Constitution is the most important qualification for a Supreme Court Justice; Kagan lacks it.

http://www.congress.org/ has a form you can use to send an email to your Senators. It is free and easy. I urge you to use it immediately.

May 19, 2010 Posted by | Fairness Doctrine, Uncategorized | , , | Leave a comment

Take a Stand against Unfairness Doctrine!


Media Research Center
Free Speech Alliance

Text of the Fairness Doctrine Petition:

I am signing this petition to urge members of Congress and government officials to reject any and all efforts to censor, limit, or restrain the right of conservatives to participate freely in the marketplace of ideas through the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” or other similar efforts.

Additionally, I am joining with other American citizens who want their individual Free Speech Rights defended and protected from government intrusion! Our great nation was built upon free and open discourse, and to remain a great nation this ideal must be protected and preserved at all costs.

Please note that I will be watching closely and taking action when necessary to directly combat the liberal bias of the media.

    The goal is to accumulate half a million signatures to apply pressure to the politicians.  Our role is to sign the petition and urge everyone in our circle of influence to sign and share the petition with others.  With a few more Senate wins, the Democrats will be able to stop a filibuster.  We need to apply maximum pressure now, and maintain it.

    After signing the petition, please go to Congress.org and enter your zip code. Under the heading Write Your Elected Officials,  click the Federal link. Compose and send an email to your Representative & Senators urging them to reject all attempts at censorship. Let them know that your next vote will depend on their votes. Be sure to click the Letters To Leaders check box so that the public can read your letter to Congress.

    Collectively, we have the power to prevent this unconstitutional atrocity. If any of us abandons that power, all of us may lose it forever. If they can censor talk radio, they can censor the Internet too.  Then we will be like the Eastern Europeans, typing multiple carbon copies on manual typewriters to communicate our facts and ideas.

    The unfairness doctrine is a blatant attempt to squelch political speech. Don’t let them do it! Act now to preserve our precious, hard won liberty.

Consider the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The text includes the technology available to the newly liberated colonists. Is there any reason to doubt that radio and the Internet would have been included if they had existed at that time?   Radio is nothing more than amplified speech, except that it has no nuisance value. Unlike the sound truck and amplified Adhan, radio is not intrusive, it is under the control of the listener. Make sure it stays that way.

Previous posts on the Unfairness Doctrine:

Tags: , ,

November 19, 2008 Posted by | Fairness Doctrine | 1 Comment

The Fairness Doctrine


On The Fairness Doctrine

There are several articles written and published that serious minded people need to read and heed. There are politicos that would like nothing better than to have a free reign at power and control over “We The People”, and the power of our votes and our voices. Most of the proponents of that philosophy, an unconstitutional one at that, are members of the Democratic Party. SO much for the self-proclaimed “heralders” of The People. One may conclude that the squelchers of Freedom of Speech are looking after their own political careers and if they can silence their opposition, the more secure they will be. Naturally, people that agree with them will be allowed to be as vocal as they so desire.

Nothing Fair About Fairness Doctrine
No Need To Bring Back The Fairness
Rigging The Debate
‘Fairness’ Blarney
‘Fairness’ Follies
Pulling The Plug
Senator Thune: Reject Orwellian Calls For Broadcast “Fairness”

From the NRSC: go there and sign the petition

Free speech is under attack.

As Democrats in Congress eagerly line up to legislate what you hear on the radio it begs the question: what’s next? Newspapers? There’s no end in sight to their power grab.

Democrats like Al Franken have tried to compete with the liberal talk radio Air America; yet they failed miserably and the network collapsed into bankruptcy.

And why did they fail? Because people chose not to listen. In this country’s Free Market system radio stations succeed and fail based on their content. If people do not like the content of the program, they turn it off. Our marketplace guarantees your freedom to choose what you want to listen to; and that freedom is what doomed liberal talk radio to collapse.

Realizing that their ideas couldn’t compete in the Free Market, Democrats schemed for ways to crush conservative talk radio’s success.

Their answer? The so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

Revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” would have the chilling effect of censoring conservative talk radio by requiring radio stations to air liberal content. Air liberal content or your station license will be revoked.

It’s unfortunate that Democrats are willing to trample on our First Amendment rights for political gain.

What part of Congress shall make no law doesn’t Hillary Clinton and Al Franken understand?

At the Fairness Doctrine Watch blog, linked to The Truth Laid Bear, established by NZ Bear, also instrumental in the highly successful Victory Caucus, there is a wealth of information in regards to the Democrat Party’s Unfairness Doctrine…

Monday Morning Roundup

Monday, 09 July 2007
Lee Butler, writing at OpinionEditorials.com:

“Democrats hate talk radio because once opened up to the market for a free exchange of ideas and viewpoints, talk radio flourished with Conservative thought and commentators, while liberals were left scratching their heads in wonderment and stewing in their own anger for losing control of that medium.

One of the main bastions of liberalism is the repression and domination of rational and diverse thought. They talk regularly about the importance of diversity, but it’s not true diversity they seek.

In their world diversity only exists in a manner directed entirely by liberals. For them, the only rational thought is one steeped in liberalism and the expression of only those thoughts should be allowed to exist in their own manufactured Utopia.”

TownHall.com is chock full o’ Fairness Doctrine opinion this week. First, Russell Shubin:

“What happened upon the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine was an opening up and a leveling of the playing field. The center-right found an opportunity to express itself through a medium that could still reach the masses: talk radio. Rush Limbaugh’s demonstrable ability to entertain while engaging the issues of the day made such programming profitable (for station operators, syndicators and, yes, Rush too) while still being informative. Whatever your opinion of the staid voices of National Public Radio, it shouldn’t surprise us that deregulation increased the talent pool and drew out broadcasters that can draw an audience.”

And be sure to also check out Harry Jackson and Paul Greenberg.

There is a video at this blog as well and I have placed it in my VODPOD above. It is Mitch McConnell Mitch-Slapping the Democrats again.

Scroll through the tags on my blog and you will find a tag labeled “Fairness Doctrine“. Click, read and learn. Including this post, you will find 17 entries and there are more to come…bank on it.

Over at the Cost Of Democrats, there is another wealth of information made readily available to the serious minded. Trolls go there as well but they haven’t the mental stamina to keep up.

The Captain’s Quarters has “A Colloquy On the Fairness Doctrine“. A CSPAN video can be viewed here in which the smiling Democrats are seen introducing the bill to silence the majority of Americans.

Newsbusters has a take on the socialist democrats as they weasel their way into the everyday lives of “We The People”.

If you had any question concerning how much the left wants the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine in order to kill conservative talk radio, you got your answer on the floor of the Senate Friday.Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota) offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reinstituting this archaic edict.

As NewsBusters reported on June 30, such an amendment overwhelmingly passed in the House a few weeks ago by the tally of 309 to 115.

Unfortunately, Senate Democrats didn’t even want to debate this issue, and, instead, lead by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), objected.

For those interested, an unofficial transcript of Coleman and Durbin’s exchange – which marvelously depicts the differences in how liberals and conservatives view the Fairness Doctrine – follows (video available here):

The Democratic Party is pushing us Patriots closer and closer to another Boston Tea Party. IAW the Constitution, that is our right.

There is another video in my VODPOD Labeled Kennedy to Hillary-Big Business payback that you will want to see and take to your own blogs.

July 15, 2007 Posted by | Fairness Doctrine | 17 Comments

John Kerry on the “Fairness Doctrine”


Poor liberals.  Cry us a river.

June 27, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech | 9 Comments

A Liberal “Unfairness Principle”


As has been previously posted here, the whiners of the Leftinistra just don’t get it. They have lost their stranglehold on America and are lashing out and grasping for the invisible straw.

CBS News has “borrowed’ from National Review On-Line, an article with the above title. I have “borrowed” it from CBS.

Remember Jim Hightower? We didn’t think so. He was the former Texas state official who was, for a few minutes, the Left’s great hope for a liberal talk-radio host to challenge the domination of Rush Limbaugh. It didn’t work out. Neither did former New York governor Mario Cuomo, another failed radio talker. And neither did, most recently, Air America, the attempt to build an entire network of liberal talk.

Poor Jim Hightower. He and Mario Cuomo doesn’t get it, either. One of these days, hopefully sooner than later, these wanna-bes will finally see that they do NOT have the pulse of America and never have. If they had the pulse of America, folks would be flocking to them and those Big Bad Conservatives that have very successful radio shows which, are broadcasting from LIBERAL owned stations, would vanish. The Big Bad Limbaughs and the Hannitys and the Levins are reflecting what the MAJORITY of Americans think and feel. It really is that simple. Why else would the LIBERAL owned and operated radio stations keep them on the air? Conservatives are good for the Big Bad and Evil Profit Monster that the LIBERAL owned and operated radio stations maintain. Hello?

Nothing has worked too successfully for liberal political talkers. Rush, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, among others, are as dominant as ever. The only thing that has changed is that liberals now seem less interested in challenging conservative talk radio in the marketplace than in strangling it with government regulation. And that presents a much greater threat than another misguided attempt to find the liberal Limbaugh.

Rush, Sean and Laura do indeed have the pulse of America. Why else would they be so successful on LIBERAL owned radio stations? And what are the LIBERAL owned radio stations doing with all that Big Bad and Evil Profit Mongering, anyway? I smell a Double Standard. And why do the Moonbats constantly attack them?

A new blueprint for a government takedown of conservative talk radio comes from the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, founded and run by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta. In a report entitled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio ,” the Center outlines a plan that would, if implemented, do enormous damage not only to conservatives on talk radio, but to freedom of speech as well.

Surveying 257 stations owned by the top-five commercial station groups, the report’s authors found the unsurprising news that 91 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative, and just nine percent “progressive.” Rather than attribute that imbalance to the generally conceded superiority of conservative programming – most radio professionals would tell you that Rush Limbaugh is simply better at what he does than any of the liberal opponents who have tried to compete with him – the report finds a deeper, more sinister case. “The gap between conservative and progressive talk radio,” it concludes, “is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system. ” According to Podesta’s Center, those structural problems can only be solved by government action.

“Progressive”. The other name for “Liberal”, “Socialist”, “Leftinistra”. Not surprisingly, the Center for American Progress doesn’t get it, either. “The Gap” they refer to is “The Gap” between their ears. There are no “structural problems in the US regulatory system”. Big Brother helps nothing. More “government action” helps nothing. Unless, naturally, one wants Big Brother to dictate all there is to dictate for the stupid people that cannot help themselves and are 100% dependent on Big Brother for up to and including the proper use of toilet paper and the quantity of sheets per use.

The “problem” missed by yet another socialist “can’t” think tank is the American people are sick and tired of groups like this retarded Can’t Think Tank.

The report proposes new national and local limits on the number of radio stations one company can own. For another, it recommends a de facto quota system to ensure that more women and minorities own radio stations. And finally, it says the government should “require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.”

More free give-away crap for folks that cannot make it on their own because NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN TO THEIR SOCIALIST CRAP!

The two-for-the-price-of-one attempt to have the government both stifle voices that don’t meet “enforceable public interest obligations” while raising money for government broadcasting is certainly a worthwhile strategy for the Left. Not for free speech and free markets, however.

Exactly so.

In addition, the report claims that the Fairness Doctrine – the government rule that, before it was repealed in 1987, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial public issues – might not really be dead, and thus might not have to be reestablished by Congress. Instead, a new administration might simply decide to enforce it again. That point is highly debatable, but it wouldn’t be surprising if President Clinton, President Obama, or President Edwards were to give it a try.

Whatever it takes to silence the voices of opposition to socialism, eh?

The fact is, liberals simply haven’t attracted talk-radio audiences. It’s not their market. But since they still largely have Hollywood, academia, the New York Times, PBS, NPR, a network news division or two … they’ll survive. And we on the Right will, too, if we keep the Center for American Progress’s dangerously wrongheaded ideas off the table.

How about a trade-off. The socialists get the radios and the conservatives take over Hollywood? Any takers?

Related articles of note:

Air America sold: gee, I wonder why

Air America files chapter 11: gee, I wonder why

 

UPDATE!!

RUSH Limbaugh, the conservative talk-radio pioneer, has been called many nasty things before, but never a “structural imbalance.” That’s the fancy term a liberal think tank uses to characterize his success – and to dress up its proposal for counteracting that success through new government regulation.

The report of the Center for American Progress on “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” marks the latest phase in liberaldom’s grappling with conservative talk radio. First came the attempts to create a liberal Limbaugh – Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower, et al. – that fell flat. Then an entire left-wing network, Air America, was founded, and foundered. So there’s only one option left – if you can’t beat them, and you won’t join them, you can agitate for government to regulate them.

The report looks at a slice of 257 talk stations and concludes that more than 90 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative. The supposed reason for this is, essentially, that media companies are conspiring to shove conservative radio down the throats of listeners in a way they couldn’t if, among other things, government required broadcasters “to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest.”

This is a pinched view of radio. There are upward of 2,000 U.S. talk stations that deal with news and issues, according to Michael Harrison of Talkers magazine, and they encompass all sorts of formats from National Public Radio to urban radio to shock jocks, none of which are dominated by right wingers. Conservative talk radio is a vibrant niche within that market, but there are many other places to go for news and opinion.

UPDATE 2:  Jack Kelly has a great comment in the last paragraph.

I see this every day at the very liberal newspaper where I work. Conservatives often write angry letters to the editor, criticizing the arguments made in an editorial, or what they perceive as the slant in a news story. Liberals unhappy with my columns often demand that I be fired. They object not just to my point of view, but to the fact that it was expressed. Scratch a liberal, and you’ll often find a fascist underneath.

June 25, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech | 6 Comments

THE ATTACK ON TALK RADIO…


If the Leftinistra had the “corner market” on Talk Radio, this would not even be contemplated. What would drive the leftinistra to try and muzzle Conservative Talk Radio? Is it because the MAJORITY of Americans are Conservative, Democrat and Republican alike?

Could it be that the likes of Reid DON’T have the pulse of America and it shows in the approval ratings? Does this explain the rantings of the losers and whiners? Could it be that the Hillarys and the Boxers are secretly trying to squelch Freedom of Speech and that if folks don’t agree with them, they must be silenced?

Why would the Leftinistra attack talk radio? And why do the Leftinistra fear it so much? Could it be no one wants to hear the trash from the lips of the Leftinistra?

This will be a big day for the left in its campaign to rid this country of their nemisis … those pesky right-wing talk show hosts. Today we’ll be hearing about a new study by the Center For American Progress, a Washington left-wing think tank. The man running this outfit is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton. This report will condemn what it calls a “massive imbalance” between conservative and “progressive” My guess is that the report will blame the preponderance of liberal talk radio shows on anything but the absolute failure of these shows to sustain themselves with good ratings. We’ll also undoubtedly see the typical statements about the asinine concept of “the public’s airwaves.”

Poor whiners. Nothing to offer so they whine. When my kids do that I send them to their rooms. “They” even wrote a paper on the subject of how the imbalance is driving them mad.

Blogrunner has a really good compilation of must reads on this subject. Jake Tapper has a fairly decent piece at ABC.

The conversation overheard may have been three years ago (what was going on then?) but the sentiment is alive and well as Lott so whined about not too long ago.

When will the politicos “remember” that it is “We The People” that “run government” and NOT the politicos of DC?

Congressman and Democratic Presidential Candidate discusses why he will reintroduce discussion of the “Fairness Doctrine”

 

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech, Kucinich | 17 Comments

The United States Constitution


The Constitution grants American Citizens (not ILLEGAL aliens or otherwise) protections guaranteeing Freedom of Speech.  Curiously, I find no where within the Constitution where Freedom of Hearing is protected.  Where is it found?  Just curious.

In a story emerging from Wierdofornia, somebody “read” something and then they “heard” something and it made them feel “targeted” and “estranged”.  Awwwwwwwwwwww.

The weirdos will be routed out and collected here.

June 24, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech | 3 Comments

Shibboleth: Monopoly


Radio broadcasting is an artificial oligopoly. The restricted spectrum & ERP limit the practical density of transmitters. With the addition of the FM service, more frequencies became available, allowing for more competition in the market.

One factor limits competition: the FCC’s issuance of licenses. Before kvetching about monopoly, survey every major market, and compare the number of licenses to the maximum number of transmitters that can operate without mutual interference in the market area. If the market is not saturated, either there is a lack of demand, a lack of capitol, or the market is being restricted politically.

Here we have a government determining how many radio stations there will be in a market, and declaring that content must be regulated because there is a monopoly.

This is equivalent to:

 

  • intentional iatrogenic disease

  • morticians murdering to generate business

  • firemen committing arson.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity & Mark Levin started out small and worked their way up, building skills and audiences; moving from smaller to larger markets. So did John Hightower, but he did not achieve the same success. Al Franken, Gov. Cuomo, Senator Gore & Senator Daschle dreamed of making it big. They failed miserably because of inexperience, poor production values and failure to inform and entertain their audiences.

 

Their solution: punish those who are successful by enacting laws to stifle their free speech rights.

The whole scam is about creating a propaganda monopoly for Socialism by preventing free market supporters from effective public speech. Our recourse is to the polls. Send the Socialists home at the next election!!!

June 22, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech | 14 Comments

Fairness Doctrine Me Arse!


Fair to whom? The whining Leftinistra talk shows that can’t hold their own water? The ones that go bankrupt because they are under the allusion or delusion that it is THEY that have the pulse of America? Please. Spare us the vitriol!

Michelle Malkin covered “it” here:

Spree covered “it” here:

Maggie’s Notebook covered “it” here:

We covered “it” here, here and here:

Mark Levin covered “it” here:

Many others covered “it” as well.

If one wishes to find out just what in the hell the Fairness Doctrine (snort-chuckle-guffaw) is, The Heritage Foundation has “it” all spelled out for ya.

Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the “fairness doctrine.” The legislation, entitled the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993,” is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.” The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.

Bottom Line? Simple. The Leftinistra have lost their grip and they see their Power Plays faltering. They blame others for their own demise and will not accept responsibilities for their own actions. SO…they want to silence the ones “responsible” for their ineptness.

 

NEWSFLASH!!!  Hitlery and Box-a-rocks want Legislative Action to KILL Talk radio…just the Conservatives, though.

June 22, 2007 Posted by | Constitution, Fairness Doctrine, Freedom Of Speech, Illegal Immigration | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: