Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DBrow

>> If someone rewrites the rules to cover other communications channels, then anything could happen.

I see your point, but as a practical matter, it would be very difficult, if not intractable, to control Internet content. Then too, there are free speech issues with trying to impose “fairness” on paid subscriber channels that I don’t think the Supremes could ignore. I wouldn’t put it past the communists to try, however.

>> many radio stations folding when the money-making hosts are gone.

If I remember correctly, AM radio was in the doldrums until President Reagan rescinded the Fairness doctrine... then it exploded. A renewed Fairness Doctrine might kill AM. Who the hell would listen to music on AM?

Side point: I would almost — ALMOST — be in favor of a “fairness doctrine” if every program INCLUDING NEWS AND PRIMETIME TEEVEE was included. Just think, a 1/2 hour of “news” plus a half hour of conservative rebuttal! Or, “Will and Grace”... followed by a Christian sitcom with a clear anti-homo message! I’m not serious... but I’m almost serious.


12 posted on 01/28/2009 2:50:00 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Nervous Tick
Really? Controlling the Internet would be easy, just ask China. Get the major hosting and search sites to play ball, and then go after smaller guys.
23 posted on 01/28/2009 3:06:28 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson