Thank God I live in America

[Zydon]

This election has truly polarized us. Republicans versus the Democrats; Conservatives versus the Liberals. But please do not forget because of our wonderful country and the constitution, we have a right to voice our opinion and agree to disagree. Yes, we are in a bit of a mess right now, but we Americans have and will pull together and do the right thing. I do feel that "Political Correctness" has eroded our society to a certain degree, but that is an opinion. What other nation on the face of the earth would allow for us to disagree with our leaders and allow for dissent without fear of retribution. It is because we have redress through the ballot box we can change things. To the owner of this message board. Thank you for allowing an avenue for all of us to express our views and opinions. I have read many different opinions and views on this board and I cherish the ability to be able to do this. It is clear that all of you are patriots and love your country very deeply as do I. We will prevail through this and will become better people for it. God bless each of you.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.— Voltaire

[fury2neon]

+1

[Guest nraforlife]

What other nation on the face of the earth would allow for us to disagree with our leaders and allow for dissent without fear of retribution.

Ever hear of the 'Fairness Doctrine'? If Obama and the Dems get control of the country you will....

[G27]

Ever hear of the 'Fairness Doctrine'? If Obama and the Dems get control of the country you will....

The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech, but rather the FCC's ability to insure that all sides have equal time when principles/viewpoints are being discussed.

If anything, the FD insures everyone has their First Amendment rights available to them (via broadcast)...

[bubbiesdad]

The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech, but rather the FCC's ability to insure that all sides have equal time when principles/viewpoints are being discussed.

If anything, the FD insures everyone has their First Amendment rights available to them (via broadcast)...

It has a lot to do with limiting the right to free speech. The first amendment insures the right to free speech, not the right to be heard.

[Guest emsputz]

It has a lot to do with limiting the right to free speech. The first amendment insures the right to free speech, not the right to be heard.

+1:)

[G27]

It has a lot to do with limiting the right to free speech. The first amendment insures the right to free speech, not the right to be heard.

The FD only applies to the FCC - not what you can say when or where you want to, only broadcast. If your views can be heard via broadcast, why can't someone else's?

Assuming you're aware that we, as citizens, own the airwaves the FCC licenses...

Free speech means everyone gets their chance - you can turn the dial/turn it off anytime you want to. Its your choice to listen, but should be everyone's choice to speak. That's what free speech is about. As long as the gov't owns/partially funds broadcasting, we have to insure everyone gets fair time.

[bubbiesdad]

The FD only applies to the FCC - not what you can say when or where you want to, only broadcast. If your views can be heard via broadcast, why can't someone else's?

Assuming you're aware that we, as citizens, own the airwaves the FCC licenses...

Free speech means everyone gets their chance - you can turn the dial/turn it off anytime you want to. Its your choice to listen, but should be everyone's choice to speak. That's what free speech is about. As long as the gov't owns/partially funds broadcasting, we have to insure everyone gets fair time.

I have no problem with them speaking. If they want to speak, they can pay for the use the airwaves the same way the people they are opposing did.

[G27]

I have no problem with them speaking. If they want to speak, they can pay for the use the airwaves the same way the people they are opposing did.

Have you guys even read what the FD is about? It doesn't mean everyone gets to get on air for free.

"[The Fairness Doctrine] did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials." (synopsis from Wikipedia)

Seriously - this in NO WAY limits freedom of speech - in fact, it makes sure that the broadcasting entities can't force their views on the public (utilizing the publicly owned airwaves) without presenting the dissenting point of view.

[DavidD]

Have you guys even read what the FD is about? It doesn't mean everyone gets to get on air for free.

"[The Fairness Doctrine] did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials." (synopsis from Wikipedia)

Seriously - this in NO WAY limits freedom of speech - in fact, it makes sure that the broadcasting entities can't force their views on the public (utilizing the publicly owned airwaves) without presenting the dissenting point of view.

Oh I get it. Kind of like the Network News Agencies (ABC, NBC and CBS) all give equal un biased time to each candidate now...

[G27]

Oh I get it. Kind of like the Network News Agencies (ABC, NBC and CBS) all give equal un biased time to each candidate now...

Well, sorta. Reagan stopped the FD back in the 80's...

[fury2neon]

The market determines what gets heard currently. That is why right wing talk radio is doing so well, because it makes and profit.

And why Air America failed, even after getting free air time in many markets no one wanted to listen.

The reason the Networks can be so biased is that people will watch the shows that pay for their ability to broadcast the news whether they ever watch the news or not.

With the Fairness Doctrine we get no opinion on the radio for fear of government prosecution.

Without the fairness doctrine we get what the people have paid to listen due to the number of listeners to a particular program.

[towerclimber37]

Crimson, I've read the fairness doctrine.

there are a couple of things that the authors of this bill fail to realize.

firstly, you can't change someone's mind with a hammer.

secondly, Most Americans I know DON'T LIKE SOCIALISM. Many of the views that they want to put out there are socialist.

what they avoid telling everyone about the fairness doctrine is just what was highlighted below...they already GET a forum for their viewpoint. it's just that no body listens to it.

they're, in effect, with this bill...forcing you to listen to their views.

they have a forum..it's called NPR.

the only problem is that aside from the liberal wingnuts, the people that listen to NPR do so to hear shows like "wait wait, don't tell me"..and when the political oriented shows come on, listeners change the channel.

[Oh Shoot]

....it's called NPR.

the only problem is that aside from the liberal wingnuts, the people that listen to NPR do so to hear shows like "wait wait, don't tell me"..and when the political oriented shows come on, listeners change the channel.

Ummm...I don't know of any "political" shows on NPR.

Matter of fact, except for Morning Edition and All Things Considered, which are daily news feature shows M-F, I can't think of any topical events programming at all, except those dealing with the arts.

What are some of these "political oriented" shows of which you speak?

- OS

[Luckyforward]

Oh the mentality here . . .

You don't know me, have never talked with me, and have no idea of who I am, but because I listen to NPR, I am already pre-judged as a "LIBERAL."

[Guest Dean_JC78]

The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech, but rather the FCC's ability to insure that all sides have equal time when principles/viewpoints are being discussed.

If anything, the FD insures everyone has their First Amendment rights available to them (via broadcast)...

That last part is a bit of a stretch. We have the right to say what we want and the govt can not do anything about it. The GOVT can not do anything about it. We have no right to be heard by our fellow citizens or anybody else in the world. I have no right to force anyone to read this post nor to listen to me rant like a madman in the streets if I so wished.

If I have no right to have my voice forced upon other people nor does the govt have the right to infringe my speech then how can they not violate the 1st Amendment with the FD? Would CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and all the liberal print media also be forced to give equal time? How about all the liberal movies? Would they be forced to make a conservative one as well? The main difference between talk radio and those other mediums I just mentioned is that talk radio does NOT pretend to be unbiased.

So if a commie like Obama is giving his opinion, does that mean that an anarchist would give a counter point? How about all points in between? Who would represent the middle guys/gals? How about the green party? How about the libertarians? How about the rest of them? After all, every view point should be taken into consideration right?

In America we have the freedom to speak out and say what we want no matter how horrible it might be but we have no right to be heard. We can say nasty hateful things and face a backlash from our fellow citizens but we should never EVER face it from our Govt.

Also the notion that the people "own" the airwaves is a crock. The people that invest their time and money into it own it. Do we also own the newspaper? How about TV? How about the gas station down the road because obviously people need to use the "public" roads to get there. Full disclosure, I did radio for over 6 years, the public owns it about as much as it owns any other private business.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Dean_JC78

[towerclimber37]

Ummm...I don't know of any "political" shows on NPR.

Matter of fact, except for Morning Edition and All Things Considered, which are daily news feature shows M-F, I can't think of any topical events programming at all, except those dealing with the arts.

What are some of these "political oriented" shows of which you speak?

- OS

and I too listen to NPR...some of it I disagree with, some I don't.

I still wish they had the tappet brothers on there still. That was the only car show that I ever enjoyed listening to.

I chose NPR because that would be the best network to give them the widest base of listeners for the price...and it's right up their alley...it's subsidized by someone else. that's their favorite flavor!

as for the Politically oriented shows... I've listened and found that all things considered is rife with bias...and morning edition is pretty much a boiled down version of the NYT slant on current events.

Edited October 23, 2008 by towerclimber37

[NuTcAsE]

I think the whole premise behind it is, not to give an "equal amount" of time.

But, too cause such a disruption to the stations, that they would drop right wing talk as it would be more trouble than it was worth. They know nobody wants to listen to their side, so it's not fair that people want to listen to ours.

[Oh Shoot]

...as for the Politically oriented shows... I've listened and found that all things considered is rife with bias...and morning edition is pretty much a boiled down version of the NYT slant on current events....

I don't perceive NPR's news staff as particularly "liberal", just eclectic, somewhat offbeat, always looking for an angle that hasn't been beat to death by more mainstream press, often seeking a personal microcosm within larger contexts, etc.

Different strokes I reckon.

- OS

[BrasilNuts]

"Seriously - this in NO WAY limits freedom of speech - in fact, it makes sure that the broadcasting entities can't force their views on the public (utilizing the publicly owned airwaves) without presenting the dissenting point of view. "

"Free speech means everyone gets their chance - you can turn the dial/turn it off anytime you want to. Its your choice to listen, but should be everyone's choice to speak. That's what free speech is about. As long as the gov't owns/partially funds broadcasting, we have to insure everyone gets fair time. "

You can't force anyone to listen to anything, they have a choice. The airwaves may belong to the people, but the stations that power the signal do not. Just like the roads belong to the people, but my truck does not.

This FD equal time is BS... if there was a market for it believe me someone would be doing it and making money.

[fury2neon]

I disagree that the air waves belong to everyone.

The air waves belong to the people who have invested in the equipment to broadcast over those air waves without government assistance. They should be able to freely broadcast whatever they want so long as they are not shouting the sky is falling to cause a panic. (We will leave that to the environmentalist.)

If people will pay to hear a message then that message should be broadcast.

What makes the left mad is that no one wants to pay to hear their broadcast so they want to force people to listen or if the people wont listen then they don;t want anyone to be able to broadcast.

[dwcz]

IMO, FD in it's current context is liberals attempting to legislate that their views must be presented to an audience that doesn't want to hear them.

Their blatant bias gets plenty of non-reciprocating airing on almost every major network.

I have been all over the world for various reasons and, like the starter of this thread, I am grateful I live in a country that allows freedom like we experience here - even the freedom to be stupid, uninformed and still allowed to say what you want