Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 04/20/2009 10:18:16 AM PDT by Danae
Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for the redress of grievances. ~ Proposed Bill of Rights, James Madison 14 Sep 1789
In the mid to late 20th century a great many technological advancements changed American society. None had greater impact than the advent of Radio and Television, and its widespread use. It created the opportunity for a far greater dissemination of information, from the factually correct and incorrect, to the biased and unbiased, on a scale never before seen in history.
As reported by Time Magazine's Dan Fletcher, in the era surrounding 1949 lawmakers became concerned with the only three media (television and radio) outlets of the day, ABC, CBS, and NBC, using their platforms to express bias in their reporting of the news of the day. In an effort to prevent this, congress in 1954 backed the policy of The Fairness Doctrine. “The Fairness Doctrine, which mandated that broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance, was meant to level the playing field” (Fletcher). Given the limited amount of information sources available to the public, this was likely a good use of the Fairness Doctrine. The Supreme Court in 1969’s Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC backed the doctrine, stating that broadcasters had no right exclusive right to the airwaves they operated on according to the First Amendment. The Fairness Doctrine would be enforced by the FCC until 1987 when the FCC would repeal it altogether (Fletcher).
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The fact that Obama could simply add a fairness doctrine favorable commissioner concerns me if nothing else. Whether they could change this law, given that the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional, I don't know. Sure as shootin I would not put it past this congress and White House - regardless of Obama's recent comments - to try.
We know most if not all stations can not afford to have opposing voices present for all shows. It is easier to show reruns of the ‘Beverly Hillbillies’ or some such. It oppresses free speech.
We know it is the conservative voices they are wanting to out shout or eliminate.
Get involved in this issue. It is a major one.
There are probably circuit judges who would call the 2nd Amendment ‘hate speech’.
An excellent break down of the pros and cons of FD reinstatement. Thanks for posting.
congress in 1954 and WHO was the US Senate Majority Leader in 1954(LBJ) maybe. He was the one who neutered Pastors(except Black) from saying anything political from the pulpit!
My pleasure!
I could not agree more!
Is that so? I didn’t know that. That is just so dark, I mean really, Ministers should be allowed to have points of view and it is just simple censorship to dictate what they can and can’t talk about. I mean really, talk about separation of church and state, the church is constitutionally guaranteed the right to say what ever it wants to. The Government is NOT allowed to interfere in any way shape or form.
A song and dance around the same target.
It amounts to censorship. harassment and intimidation. We should be very wary of this as Americans, not just conservatives.
If my memory serves correctly, the restrictions on the pulpit have more to do with IRS tax exempt code than separation of church and state.
They should have adopted Madison’s as it was written. It left no wiggle room for the “Separation” misinterpretation
You won’t get an argument from me on that point.
I can’t argue with that. Madison was brilliant.
Oath Keepers Rally for Constitution on Lexington Green
The New American | 4-20-09 | Thomas R. Eddlem
Posted on 04/20/2009 11:49:32 AM PDT by AmericanHunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2233599/posts
BTTT
Was not the statment made last week by DHS an intrusion into free speech also. By displaying certain bumper stickers or taking a stance on abortion, gay marriage, etc is proclaiming we could be more or less cited as a terriosts is also a form of infringing on our rights of free speech.
Not to mention a not so subtle threat. As God is my witness, if a Republican administration official had said something like that, there would have been public hangings on the Mall in DC.
Bloody hypocrites democrats are. (/Yoda moment)
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.