28 Jun 07
I was listening to talk radio the other day and Hannity was on. For those who do not know who he is, Hannity is a conservative talk show host on Fox news called Hannity and Combs. On the show is a liberal counterpart named Combs and they go head to head on issues that usually are split down part lines. Anyway, as I was listening to Hannity, he was going off on the current US immigration policy and saying that both Republican and Democrat alike were to blame for the current immigration debacle. First of all, it kind of shocked me that he was going after Republicans. I mean, I think it shows just how far the Republican party has ventured from conservative issues such as immigration. It also shows how much alike the Republican and Democratic parties really are. However, that is not why I started this thread. I started this thread because Hannity said that legislation was in the works to silence those on talk radio that opposed governmental policies such as the current immigration legislation being presented today that he opposes. I think it is called the "Fairness Doctrine", or some such nonsense. The gist of it is that when someone says something political on the radio, that ther MUST be an opposing view presented to counter such arguements. First of all, has anyone ever heard of this legislation being proposed? Secondly, is anyone creeped out by it as much as I am? I mean, hello? Freedom of speech, has anyone heard of this!!!!!
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe talk is about bringing back the fairness doctrine. It's a relic from back when we had about 4 channels available.
I was listening to talk radio the other day and Hannity was on. For those who do not know who he is, Hannity is a conservative talk show host on Fox news called Hannity and Combs. On the show is a liberal counterpart named Combs and they go head to head on issues that usually are split down part lines. Anyway, as I was listening to Hannity, he was going of ...[text shortened]... d out by it as much as I am? I mean, hello? Freedom of speech, has anyone heard of this!!!!!
28 Jun 07
Originally posted by princeoforangeSlightly different tactics, but same result.
Chavez wouldn't give the view which opposed his own any airtime at all.
Just create a law to harrass radio stations and the legal cost of conservative talk radio will be so high they'll all be out of business. Fairness advocates know this good and well. There won't suddenly be "two sides", there'll be "no sides" as far as talk radio goes.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by techsouthNow that makes sense. In the end, the goal is to silence opposition. I find this frightening to say the least, but not suprising.
Slightly different tactics, but same result.
Just create a law to harrass radio stations and the legal cost of conservative talk radio will be so high they'll all be out of business. Fairness advocates know this good and well. There won't suddenly be "two sides", there'll be "no sides" as far as talk radio goes.
29 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIt's happening in NZ
Now that makes sense. In the end, the goal is to silence opposition. I find this frightening to say the least, but not suprising.
"the new rules to govern the extended telecasting of Parliament from next month: the use of material for 'satire, ridicule or denigration' will be banned. Transgressors could be thrown in jail."
http://pc.blogspot.com/2007/06/satire-ridicule-and-denigration-all.html#links
It's a link to a blog but you can go from there to the news story.
What is satire, ridicule and denigration? Who will define this? Will it turn iinto any opposing view?
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by lepomisIt was rhetorical lepomis. The point being there will now be regulation that will attempt to define something that has a large subjective grey area. And on the basis of those definitions freedom of speech will be regulated when reporting on the goings on of MPs supposedly doing their job.
I can not define them, but I known them when I see them.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by Wajoma🙂 I know, it just reminded me of a famous supreme court case.
It was rhetorical lepomis. The point being there will now be regulation that will attempt to define something that has a large subjective grey area. And on the basis of those definitions freedom of speech will be regulated when reporting on the goings on of MPs supposedly doing their job.
Justice Potter Stewart used the phrase in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio. He wrote:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by WajomaEven "fairness doctrine" is subjective and leads to too much government power. If a Republican gets an hour on radio to talk about something, who gets the "equal time". Is it a democrat or a libertarian, or even a skin-head?
It was rhetorical lepomis. The point being there will now be regulation that will attempt to define something that has a large subjective grey area. And on the basis of those definitions freedom of speech will be regulated when reporting on the goings on of MPs supposedly doing their job.
These questions seem simple now that they are purely rhetorical. But once they have real implications in law it's going to become a lot more contentious and subject to political manuplation by the government. Also, radio station A could have talk radio that is kind to the government, while radio station B could have talk radio less kind. Who do you think will have more visits from the FCC? The FCC will use tax money to raise all sorts of legal obstacles for station B, while station B will have to dip into their private funds from profits to pay for their defense. And the FCC can always ask for more tax money to protect the "public interest" if their initial harrassment doesn't work.
In the end, station B will become the "all bass-fishing" network and leave the government alone.
The whole way of thinking of liberals is odd. They think it is important to protect the common man from big powerful interests (such as "evil corporations" or "talk radio"😉 is to grant ever more power to a bigger and ever benign entitiy (i.e. government). History shows clearly how evil a government becomes to preserve or expand its sovereignty.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by techsouthYep, so many of them are advocates for the biggest baddest corporation/monopoly of them all;
Even "fairness doctrine" is subjective and leads to too much government power. If a Republican gets an hour on radio to talk about something, who gets the "equal time". Is it a democrat or a libertarian, or even a skin-head?
These questions seem simple now that they are purely rhetorical. But once they have real implications in law it's going to beco ...[text shortened]... shows clearly how evil a government becomes to preserve or expand its sovereignty.
The State
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by lepomisIndeed.
I can not define them, but I known them when I see them.
We all know them when we see them now.
But once "satire" becomes illegal and "public debate" is still legal, I'll bet a lot of pundits and politicians will no longer know it so well when they see it.
Just recently some pretended like Ann Coulter has actually wished death on John Edwards, blatently pretending to not recognize satire.
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyDid I miss something or misinterpret something? Isn't it already this way on television stations, or at least the major ones? Both sides are heard in debates, commercials for campaigns, after speeches by whoever is president at the time, etc. No one is being silenced. Why be afraid of letting the other side's voice be heard?
I was listening to talk radio the other day and Hannity was on. For those who do not know who he is, Hannity is a conservative talk show host on Fox news called Hannity and Combs. On the show is a liberal counterpart named Combs and they go head to head on issues that usually are split down part lines. Anyway, as I was listening to Hannity, he was going of ...[text shortened]... d out by it as much as I am? I mean, hello? Freedom of speech, has anyone heard of this!!!!!
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerIts not so much being afraid of what the other side thinks. Its about not wanting more government regulations. We are too regulated already.
Did I miss something or misinterpret something? Isn't it already this way on television stations, or at least the major ones? Both sides are heard in debates, commercials for campaigns, after speeches by whoever is president at the time, etc. No one is being silenced. Why be afraid of letting the other side's voice be heard?