Fairness Doctrine - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LUVMBDiesels · #91 10-31-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

The beauty of the present system ( UNfairness??) is that you have the choice to listen to Limbaugh or Hannity, or to change the station. If the "Fairness Doctrine is reimposed you lose some choices. Is less choice a good thing?

Currently all this having to choose for ourselves is dividing the nation and causing stress amongst the great unwashed.Yes, less choice is a good thing.

After all since we are just embittered gun-clingers anyway, any choice we make is suspect. Better to have the Government decide who should be allowed to speak and then let us 'choose' from the list of approved commentators and media outlets.

Botnst · #92 10-31-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

Currently all this having to choose for ourselves is dividing the nation and causing stress amongst the great unwashed.Yes, less choice is a good thing.

After all since we are just embittered gun-clingers anyway, any choice we make is suspect. Better to have the Government decide who should be allowed to speak and then let us 'choose' from the list of approved commentators and media outlets.

I agree: It is better to be united hopefully than to be audaciously free.

Freedom should be enforced by the Minister of Social Truth and Economic Justice.

tankdriver · #93 10-31-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Look man, it's been said before -- fire in a theater, coordinating mobs to murder in Rwanda. Not all speech on the public airwaves has to be tolerated by all people.

Slander is one such bit of speech. Hannity and Limbaugh slander right and left.

Here's a recent bit of torturous truth twisting by Limbaugh, and this is slander:

Distorting comments by Sen. Barack Obama from a 2001 radio interview, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely characterized Obama as "an anti-constitutional professor" who has "flatly rejected" the U.S. Constitution. Obama made the comments in a panel discussion of how the Founders addressed the issue of slavery in the Constitution; he did not reject it, as Limbaugh falsely claimed, but called it "a remarkable political document."

During his October 27 broadcast, Limbaugh said: "Obama, ladies and gentlemen, calls himself a constitutional professor or a constitutional scholar. In truth, Barack Obama was an anti-constitutional professor. He studied the Constitution, and he flatly rejected it. He doesn't like the Constitution, he thinks it is flawed, and now I understand why he was so reluctant to wear the American flag lapel pin. Why would he?" Limbaugh later added, "I don't see how he can take the oath of office" because "[h]e has rejected the Constitution."

Limbaugh's assertion that Obama "rejected the Constitution" is false, as is clear from a clip from a September 6, 2001, interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ that Limbaugh aired later in the show. In fact, while saying that the Constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day," Obama asserted that the Constitution is "a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now."

In a preceding portion of the WBEZ program -- titled "Slavery and the Constitution" -- Obama explained that the "fundamental flaw" was that "the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers," and that the framers did not "see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth." Without airing that part of the WBEZ program, in which Obama explained his position that the Constitution reflected the "fundamental flaw of this country," Limbaugh criticized Obama for saying that the Constitution reflected a "fundamental flaw," while falsely accusing Obama of saying the flaw cannot "be fixed": "How is he going to -- I asked this earlier -- how is he gonna place his hand on the Bible and swear that he, Barack Hussein Obama, will uphold the Constitution that he feels reflects the nation's fundamental flaw. Fundamental. When he talks about a fundamental flaw, he's not talking about a flaw that can be fixed. Fundamental means that this document is, from the get-go, wrong."

But Obama's identification of a fundamental flaw reflected in the Constitution and "continuing to this day" is hardly unique; several influential Republicans, including President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have articulated a similar view:

At a July 19 event at the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice said: "In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I've said it's a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It's why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race."

During a July 10, 2003, interview on CNN's Larry King Live, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "It took us a while to recognize that we could not live our Constitution truly unless we eliminated slavery, and hundreds of thousands of young men fought a civil war to end slavery and then it took us a long time to get rid of the vestiges of slavery and we're still working on it to this very day."

In July 8, 2003, remarks made at Goree Island in Senegal, Bush said that the "moral vision" of abolitionists "caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race." He added: "The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times."

This from:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280007?f=h_latest

Many hits on the topic:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=limbaugh+obama+constitution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

A guy in Obama's position cannot just sue every such purveyor of this kind of crap for slander. It would take forever and would be resolved long after the damage had been done. Much better for Limbaugh to have to listen and respond to someone exposing him for the LIAR that he is on his own show. I submit the arrangement I suggest would make a better person of him.

If he doesn't like such restrictions, let him go on SIRIUS.

I fail to see the problem. Limbaugh said something stupid, media matters called him on it.
If you wanted to be fair, you would have to force media matters to let Limbaugh publish his thoughts on their website as they call into his radio show. I fail to see what this accomplishes.

cmac2012 · #94 10-31-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It is incumbent upon the aggrieved party to file the law suit. Not you. If Obama doesn't feel strongly about it, that's his right.

If the law concerning slander has been interpreted too liberally, guess where you should put the blame? Hint: NOT Limbaugh.

It's a no win situation for Obama or party. It's like telling the jury to disregard some outburst from a witness a few months after the trial is over, as if people can ever disregard something they've heard.

If Obama or team does sue, endless barbs about how thin skinned they are, or about the folly of tieing up court time for such trivia.

"Law interpreted liberally, etc." Lemme guess -- blame belongs on some democrat or liberal.

cmac2012 · #95 10-31-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I fail to see the problem. Limbaugh said something stupid, media matters called him on it.
If you wanted to be fair, you would have to force media matters to let Limbaugh publish his thoughts on their website as they call into his radio show. I fail to see what this accomplishes.

Websites are not public property. The airwaves are, ideally. Radio is uniqely suited for propaganda. Sound effects can be used to fool the listener. It goes out to many, many people, instantly.

Many people called Limbaugh on it. How many of his ardent listeners know he spouted pure falsehood? So Limbaugh gets over, succeeds at carrying water in service of trashing the dreaded demo.

Botnst · #96 10-31-2008, 06:43 PM

Websites go over the airwaves as do phone conversations. Some channels are highly regulated -- air traffic freqs, for example. Since the airwaves are public you should have no problem with regulating speech over cellphones.

cmac2012 · #97 10-31-2008, 06:55 PM

Not sure if your distinctions are correct. Cab companies use a certain spectrum that they license and have exclusive use of. In their vicinity anyway. The range is usually less than 30, 40 miles.

And it's a bit of hair-splitting, IMO. Cell conversations are private -- 2 parties or maybe a few more in conference calls.

Radio and TV are like the modern day public square: (Hear me fellow citizens, on a matter of importance to all of us, etc.)

LUVMBDiesels · #98 10-31-2008, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

...

And it's a bit of hair-splitting, IMO. Cell conversations are private -- 2 parties or maybe a few more in conference calls.

...

That's what you think. Any cell conversation is considered public use of the airwaves and if you had a receiver that could pick up a 'private conversation' you would be entitled to listen.

Also who said that websites have to remain private property? If it goes on the PUBLIC Internet, shouldn't it be regulated for the PUBLIC GOOD? They do that in China...

We NEED regulation to ensure that the public is informed fairly. Imagine an Internet without racism or any other hate crime...

tankdriver · #99 10-31-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Websites are not public property. The airwaves are, ideally. Radio is uniqely suited for propaganda. Sound effects can be used to fool the listener. It goes out to many, many people, instantly.

Many people called Limbaugh on it. How many of his ardent listeners know he spouted pure falsehood? So Limbaugh gets over, succeeds at carrying water in service of trashing the dreaded demo.

The station purchases the rights to the frequency, no? Radio's a great form of communication, sure. That doesn't mean that because of it's effectiveness in transmitting speech, it should somehow not be as free. Even if I didn't have a problem with the whole idea, I would certainly have a problem singling out one form just because too many people may hear free speech. Whether it reaches 10 or 10million shouldn't matter.

How many of his ardent listeners are going to give two sh**s no matter what form of 'fairness' you want to legislate?

Chris Bell · #**100** 10-31-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Not sure if your distinctions are correct. Cab companies use a certain spectrum that they license and have exclusive use of. In their vicinity anyway. The range is usually less than 30, 40 miles.

And it's a bit of hair-splitting, IMO. Cell conversations are private -- 2 parties or maybe a few more in conference calls.

Radio and TV are like the modern day public square: (Hear me fellow citizens, on a matter of importance to all of us, etc.)

Do you really understand that your arguing in favor of censoring political speech. The exact kind speech the constitution and bill of rights defends? The founders of this country must be rolling over in their graves. CMAC the fascist. All hail the new fascists, Obama followers. And you bozos called Bush a fascist.

tankdriver · #**101** 10-31-2008, 11:09 PM

Cmac is a fascist (

). Cmac supports Obama. Therefore Obama supporters are fascists. You sure this is what you want to go with?

Chris Bell · #**102** 10-31-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Cmac is a fascist (

). Cmac supports Obama. Therefore Obama supporters are fascists. You sure this is what you want to go with?

No, I want to go with...anybody who wants to censor political speech because they don't agree with it is a fascist. If you have a problem with that, tough.

cmac2012 · #**103** 11-01-2008, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

The station purchases the rights to the frequency, no? Radio's a great form of communication, sure. That doesn't mean that because of it's effectiveness in transmitting speech, it should somehow not be as free. Even if I didn't have a problem with the whole idea, I would certainly have a problem singling out one form just because too many people may hear free speech. Whether it reaches 10 or 10million shouldn't matter.

How many of his ardent listeners are going to give two sh**s no matter what form of 'fairness' you want to legislate?

The whole thing is fraught with peril to be sure. There's no easy answer. But imagine we had no modern communication and some guy got up in the public square in your village and repeatedly maligned your name and your work with falsehoods and half truths. Imagine you went to the same square and said "now look here, that is not what happened, here's the way it went . . . " and were immediately told, "See here, you have no right to speak on this man's frequency. Go get your own town square," followed by being led away by constables for refusing to go quietly. It would be absurd of course.

But that's what we have now. Limbaugh and Hannity have gone rogue and no one can stand up to offer their defense. And don't tell me they debate with callers . . . please . . . . kill switch at the ready.

cmac2012 · #**104** 11-01-2008, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Bell

Do you really understand that your arguing in favor of censoring political speech. The exact kind speech the constitution and bill of rights defends? The founders of this country must be rolling over in their graves. CMAC the fascist. All hail the new fascists, Obama followers. And you bozos called Bush a fascist.

This is rich. See the post above, BTW, on the censoring issue. I have not proposed deleting what Limbaugh says, merely challenging it, IN THE SAME SQUARE.

Ironic all this talk about Obama the socialist, when another political buzzword label fits Obama's critics quite well. If you go with one definition of fascism, the collusion between state and business, McCain and many of his top advisers fit the bill. Gramm the banking deregulator is snugly in bed with the banking industry. The Dept. of Interior under Repos is given over to the mining industry. The entire DeLay legacy is one of govt. getting cozy with bidness for fun and mutual profit. I saw DeLay on the telly last night, trying to burnish his image. Holy crap, what a mean thug.

Halliburton has gotten way wealthy under the shadow tenure of its embedded CEO. But I'm the fascist because I believe people should be challenged on their lies in a fair debate.

Chris Bell · #**105** 11-01-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

This is rich. See the post above, BTW, on the censoring issue. I have not proposed deleting what Limbaugh says, merely challenging it, IN THE SAME SQUARE.

Ironic all this talk about Obama the socialist, when another political buzzword label fits Obama's critics quite well. If you go with one definition of fascism, the collusion between state and business, McCain and many of his top advisers fit the bill. Gramm the banking deregulator is snugly in bed with the banking industry. The Dept. of Interior under Repos is given over to the mining industry. The entire DeLay legacy is one of govt. getting cozy with bidness for fun and mutual profit. I saw DeLay on the telly last night, trying to burnish his image. Holy crap, what a mean thug.

Here's a list Hussein donors from the banking industry, I'll bet that now that he's been bought he stays bought.

John W. Roberts - (over $500,000) Ariel Capital Management
Richard Leweke – Vice Chairman of Washington Mutual Card Services
Seth Waugh – CEO of Deutsche Bank
Charles Lewis – Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch
Michael Froman – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Citigroup
David Heller – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Goldman Sachs
Bruce Heyman - Over $200,000 - Managing Director Goldman Sachs
J. Michael Schell – Over $200,000 Managing Director at Citigroup
Jim Torrey – Over $500,000 Founder of the Torrey Funds – Hedge Funds
Todd Williams – Over $50,000 Managing Director Goldman Sachs & The Real Estate Council
Louis Susman - Over $200,000 Citi Investment Banking
John Rhea - (over $500,000) Co-Head of Lehman Bros. Global Investment Banking
Mark Gilbert - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Christine Forester - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Theodore Janulis – Bundler (over $100,000) & Lehman Brothers Head of Global Mortgages
Nadja Fidelia – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Lehman Brothers