I see that the dems are getting ready to " muzzle the right" as Drudge put it.

What do you liberals think about re instituting the fairness doctrine? Is it a way to insure free speech, or a way to prevent the speech you might be opposed to?

I have always maintained that free speech means that you must insure the speech which reviles you the most. Anything less is not truly free speech.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Externally imposed concept of fairness is more important than freedom?

B

How about defining Liberals? As that word seems to mean many different things to different people. As in fact does conservative.

Personally I regard myself as extremely liberal in some respects, not so in others. I've no doubt the left will try to re-institute the "Fairness doctrine" as they have never been able to keep their paws off government intrusion into private life. Naturally I think it stinks.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

How about the government enforces the Constitution and doesn't go further than that?

I don't recall there being a fairness doctrine in the Constitution, so the government should but out.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Why doesn't the "right" just contact the ACLU?

Electron vs anti-electron, annihilation in a brilliant flash.

Oh, too elitist I suppose.

If only.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

You are, of course, right.
That is why I said the dems were ready to impose the fairness doctrine.
Classic liberals would never support any idea of a "fairness" doctrine. neither would would classic, paleo-Conservatives. Strange.

Where are the champions of the common man? No longer in the democrat party, it would seem.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I think you mean "butt" out.

The Constitution is actually a limitation on the government. It sets the limits of what the government can do and there is something in the Constitutional about equal protection. In that regard the Constitution ensures that the government does not make laws that facilitate disparate treatment, including as to speech.

14th Amendment: "No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

__________________
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/l...aman/Fleet.jpg

Peach Parts W124.128 User Group.

80 280SL
85 300SD
87 300TD
92 300D 2.5 Turbo
92 300TE 4Matic

Yeah, actually a "Giant sucking sound".

That article is from the new york post, If you don't know, the NYP is a laughable, sensationalistic rag that can't spell journalistic integrity...let alone define it. It is clearly meant to appeal to the LCD.

That being said, the article clearly states that BO does not support it...'Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation'

__________________
Cheers,
Robert

Impeachable source? OMG, on the Internet.... how the world devolves.

(Return sarcasmorizer to the dungeon)

Will Obama veto a bill brought to him by Congress that abridges the freedom of speech?

Clinton & Bush did.

B

that was pretty good Bot, but I was hoping for sarcasm b/c I impeached the source, then quoted it.

__________________
Cheers,
Robert

One too many highballs, not enough low-balls.