Fairness Doctrine is flat out WRONG

[XcoldhandsX]

From my point of view it seems like the first step in dismantling the constitution and I hope that all the conservatives in this guild at least recognize the villainy in this "fairness doctrine". If any of the liberals in this guild (i think there are two) support this or if anyone at all has any sane explanation as to how this isnt at least unconstitutional please tell me  

[Lord Bitememan]

Guaranteed filibuster when it hits the Senate floor. Won't come up for a vote till after 2010, depending on the results of the midterms.  

[DanskiWolf]

They should just cut the crap and call it what is - the Fascist Doctrine.  

[Ninja Autobot]

While I normally would trust in the inherent belief in the basics of the Constitution of my fellow Americans, I must say my trust has degraded enough that I think that this will eventually pass. Probably not soon, but with Obama at the helm, who knows, honestly. Yes, it is complete crap. But then again, what else do the Dems have to offer?

Doesn't anyone else see this as kind of like a little kid crying out that a game's not fair because he just so happens to be losing a lot?  

[Lord Bitememan]

Again, wouldn't lose any sleep over fairness doctrine. For the next 2 years they wont even put this onto the Senate floor, even Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins wouldn't jump ship for this one. It also bears mention that John Tester, Jim Webb, the Udall brothers, or either Democrat Nelson want to face their constituents as the one who took Rush Limbaugh off the radio. This is going to require a broad enough Democratic majority that they can mount cloture on the issue and still pass it with Democratic defectors in a final vote. Such conditions won't exist at least until after the 2010 elections, if they ever materialize. Next you're faced with the constitutional issues of this law. Would the Roberts court find that privately owned radio stations must broadcast content they don't approve of? I have a hard time believing Breyer or Kennedy would support this, let alone Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. So that means Fairness Doctrine is dead on the doorstep of the Sepreme Court. Now, suppose by some miracle this passes Supreme Court review. All you really do is kill public airwave radio. They tried liberal talk radio, and it died of SIDS. So, if you get the conservative talkshows yanked from AM radio, all that really happens is people drop out of AM radio in favor of subscription radio and webcast. So, in five years from the time of passage liberals stand scratching their heads wondering why AM radio is in chapter 11 across the country, while XM, Sirius, and the soon to be "LiveLimbaugh.com" are growing by leaps and bounds. In the meantime bitter conservatives flood the polls on election day and the Democrats large but tenuous hold on Congress is undone, depending on the timing so is their hold on the White House. In the end the fairness doctrine is a loser of an issue for liberals, and enough of them know this to take a hands-off approach.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

*agrees with Lord Biteman* I don't think anyone would be smart enough to pass this, worse comes to worse I'm sure America wouldn't agree. I, as a hair-to-the-left-liberal, don't agree with this act, to me it's a direct violation of the 1st amendment. But I also disagree with the USA on the issue of censorship of language...  

[Kingthor2282]

DanskiWolf

They should just cut the crap and call it what is - the Fascist Doctrine.

Anyone else notice that Liberals want everyone to tolerate everyone else, unless you smoke, drink, have different views, love America, and happen to be Republican. But I too believe that the is just another step toward Fascisim.  

[James628]

there is no way it could get passed, just about ever republican sen. and a hand full of moderate dems would vote against it.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Any government act that prevents "biasing" is flat out wrong. I've never been a fan of government censorship. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow the people to freely bias their speech. If it wasn't nothing would get done.

"I believe in equal marriage rights for homosexuals, but I agree with the other side that it may cause AIDS to spread to everyone and kill them" <-- over exaggerated for get-the-point-across purposes

No, it's to show our arguments in a way that will allow people to think "Hey, this guy might be right, why was I listening to person 'y' when person 'x' seems more convincing and logical!  

[gamerguy121]

AMEN. I think that this was a debate since the 1990s, which Rush Limbaugh called, and correct me if I'm wrong, the "Hush Rush Law". Really, it is flawed in many ways, but one thing sticks out.]

RATINGS.

Rush Limbaugh is STILL the highest rated talk show host in America.
Air America is on the verge of, if not already in, bankruptcy.

The other conservative hosts are rated high, the liberals are almost one-and-done.  

[Rosary16]

DanskiWolf

They should just cut the crap and call it what is - the Fascist Doctrine.

Amen, brother!  

[Latopazora]

correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Fairness Doctrine already law during the 60s and 70s, but later was taken down? This is the second attempt to make it law?  

[Lord Bitememan]

The Fairness Doctrine was never law per se. It was a standard held by the FCC from 1949 till 1987. While never enacted by Congress, the courts upheld the right of the FCC to uphold the standard for all licensed broadcasters on the basis that airwave transmission occurred over a finite amount of a public good. This is why the Fairness Doctrine wasn't deemed unconstitutional, whereas the same standard, applied to print press, would be held as patently unconstitutional. Proponents of repealing the standard argued that the doctrine had a chilling effect on public discourse. In the years after the repeal of the doctrine conservative talk radio absolutely exploded nationwide, which certainly justifies the concerns of the original proponents of the repeal. In the immediate aftermath of the Doctrine's repeal there were some sporadic attempts to revive it, but those late died totally during the Clinton administration. It has only been recently, with the abject failure of Air America Radio that Democrats, and Democrats exclusively have attempted to resurrect the Doctrine. The problem is the FCC has no interest, and the courts have ruled that this is at the discretion of the FCC barring any act of Congress. So, the push now is for Congress to make the Doctrine into law.  

[xxTyeTye]

hmm
this is a very interesting doctrine
it seems to help equality and help put some sense in thick headed people
but clearly to me if is unconstitutional.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Meh. It wont pass. If it does, well, fight it.