The Fairness Doctrine and Civil Rights

Examiner.com ^ | 4/20/2009 | Dianna Cotter

[Danae]

More at link

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.

[geologist]

It is an important issue. To have free speech we must not have a ‘fairness doctrine’ because it does just the opposite.

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.

[Always Right]

There are probably circuit judges who would call the 2nd Amendment ‘hate speech’.

[Gabz]

An excellent break down of the pros and cons of FD reinstatement. Thanks for posting.

[US Navy Vet]

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!

[Danae]

My pleasure!

[Danae]

I could not agree more!

[Buckeye McFrog]

latest scuttlebutt is that the Fairness Doctrine as formerly constituted would never survive the Roberts Court and has been abandoned. They are formulating a much more devious strategy that involves forcing “diversity in ownership” (i.e. forcing Clear Channel to sell stations to groups headed by Al Sharpton, etc.) and giving a heavy influence to comments from “community groups” (read ACORN) come license renewal time. Also forcing them to renew licenses every 2 yrs. The combined effect of having to run that gauntlet every other year should be to keep station owners playing oldies and polka music for the foreseeable future.

[Danae]

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.

[Danae]

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.

[Gabz]

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.

[massgopguy]

They should have adopted Madison’s as it was written. It left no wiggle room for the “Separation” misinterpretation

[Gabz]

You won’t get an argument from me on that point.

[Danae]

I can’t argue with that. Madison was brilliant.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[SunkenCiv]

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

[Danae]

BTTT

[paul revere is riding]

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.

[Danae]

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)

[Centurion2000]

bump