Posted on 02/16/2009 6:55:50 AM PST by TennTuxedo
DOCTRINE AIR DEMOCRACY
Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them." Copps will remain acting chairman of the FCC until President Obama's nominee, Julius Genachowski, is confirmed, and Copps has been told by the White House not create "problems" for the incoming chairman by committing to issues or policy development before the Obama pick arrives.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The problem with the "court interpretations" of the 14th overriding the 10th are that the (federal) courts have arrogated the right TO supercede the states' sovereignty by ruling in, arguably, their OWN FAVOR. In other words, the courts are not a neutral party in this issue.
The Arizona resolution above clearly states that the fedgov is an agent acting in behalf of the states, not the other way around, as the fedgov is now behaving.
I suppose they think someone with only enough IQ points to log on to one internet site would not know how to find another site with a different point of view? Oh, that’s right, they are so much smarter than all us dummies out here. We couldn’t find the “correct” site.
They continually confuse the right to speak with a non-existent right to make people listen.
By the way, I have intercepted an internet transmission with the words from Bam-Bam’s speech announcing the Fairness Doctrine Returns:
“Dire economic emergency,”
“...caused by baseless fears spread over the media”
“No right to shout fire in a crowded theater”
“Yet they shout ‘depression’ and ‘doom and gloom’...”
“reasonable regulation for fairness and balance”
“...an end to hate speech over public airwaves”
I didn’t say I had the speech itself, just key words from it. Wanna bet 90% of the above will be used in the justification?
Only because a bunch of wimps are Governors, Any State can Force a Constitutional Crisis, just refuse to abide by the Supreme Court and then arrest and throw in jail all Federal Employees in the State Starting with Judges and Jack Booted Federal Thugs with badges. Put them all in General Population. It will fix itself.
Second, here in Ca. if Governor Shriver wasn’t such a WUSS, he would have immediately seized the assets of every Financial Institution that allows Illegal Aliens to open accounts. Charge them ALL with Money Laundering, then Execute them after trial.
Eyeamok
“Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?”
Don’t we give equal time to DU?
I like the way you think!
I just as soon take away their whips than to have everyone beaten with them.
I do like the pun — doctrinaire, indeed.
Here’s how it will work, they will get this bill passed and ACORN will then take over at the local community levels. They will inundate local radio & TV stations to accomplish what Obama and his goons want done. Pretty soon Rush, Hannity, Levin, all the rest will slowly be taken off the air because it will be too costly and time consuming for the little stations out there to keep up. No one will be able to bitch about the “Fairness Doctrine” because that’s not what it’s going to be called. All the evil goes back to ACORN, who we just gave a few billion to this weekend. Very sad.
Back in 93-94 Clinton would not touch the FD but now the democrats are drunk with their large majority and opinion polls on Obama, so given Pelosi’s stim bill who knows what they might try?? Something Chavis-ian about stamping out the minority's voice. Did we shut down MSNBC when Bush was president?
On the bright side these are much better battles to fight then the immigration battle against Bush and McCain two years ago. At least we all unit on these assaults. I have been saying, the crazier they act the better for us, FNC is all over this subject.
Silence the only remaining outlets for truth, free speech and the presentation of news and facts. A dictatorship can never permit its subjects to have the facts or glimpse the truth. Far too dangerous.
de facto, yes.
Arizona’s resolution, if you read it,
reads very much like the Declaration of Independence.
A list of wrongs by the fedgov, followed by a demand to cease and desist.
Is this the first small step to “Back to the Future?” 1860 comes to mind, I hope not. My grand uncle was in the Confederate Army and was captured at the Battle of Vicksburg. We don’t know what happened to him after that.
Well good luck. If y’all can pull this off, maybe there’s hope for the rest of us.
There are 20 states that have some sort of sovereignty resolution in process.
Television and cable?
I have a wristwatch with a channel changer built in. You should have one too.
Now, peer to peer, I think the technology is there to maintain FreeRepublicX without the use of a dedicated server.
Fur Shur there will be no Commo/Demo/Fascist BS on my part of the net.
“present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?”
From now on, Macy’s ads will have to link to WalMart.
SnapOn Tools must provide a link to Sears.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler ads will include links to Toyota.
Yup, that’ll work!
Advocates of the "Fairness" Doctrine restrict their complaints to one medium - radio, predominantly AM radio. And they restrict their complaints to one genre of programming, political commentary and public calls.But even restricting your attention to AM radio, journalism has more time on almost all stations than Rush Limbaugh has on a minority of all stations. Advocates of the "Fairness" Doctrine take for granted that journalism is objective - but they cannot prove that. They would defensively note that you can't prove a negative, and that is correct - the claim of objectivity is really a claim of lack of bias. It is a claim which could not be proven, even if it were true.
But that does not mean that it is not false, or even that it cannot be proven to be false. In reality, story selection and emphasis in journalism is easily explained by the rules of journalism - "If it bleeds, it leads," "Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man," and "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper." But although those rules are constant, and they can easily be justified from the POV of the business interest of journalism, that does not prove that the emphases of those rules are in the public interest, any more than the rules which Walmart applies to its operations must be in the public interest just because they promote the profitability of Walmart. After all, none of the journalists in operation today were alive when the First Amendment stipulated freedom of the press, and none of the newspapers in operation today were in operation back then. No one in the founding era assumed that those particular papers would last forever, and their names are not in the Constitution as being essential to the welfare of the Republic. Indeed, it was not taken for granted that the newspapers of the founding era were objective - nor could it have been, since two of the founders of the country sponsored newspapers for the purpose of publicizing their disagreements with each other.
It is a fact that today, many people assume that journalism is objective - but the "journalism" of which they speak is a singular noun, journalism without competition, journalism homogenized by the Associated Press. If the Associated Press asserts that journalism is objective, that settles the matter for anyone who does not question whether the AP and its membership are the one true "press" of the First Amendment - and that anyone who does not have membership in "The Associated Press" is a lesser order of being than those who do have membership. But that is essentially a claim to a title of nobility, expressly forbidden by Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution.
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.