Read all about it. On Fox News, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) made the following statement:
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
I do not wish to be rude, but are you b.s.-ing me??? How can anybody, especially a United States Senator possibly equate political speech in the radio forum with pornography? How in the heck does one do pornography on the radio, anyway?
I'd like to clarify the following for the Honorable Mr. Schumer. First, pornography isn't political speech. I am confident in my belief that the Founding Fathers of our nation weren't thinking of dirty magazines or filthy nudie shows in movie houses and cable TV (or whatever forums for this kind of thing that they had in 1790) when they added the First Amendement to our Constitution. But I am equally confident that political expression and especially the voice of peaceful political dissent is precisely what they had in mind when they were writing the First Amendment. Which is to say that you have the right to express your political views without fear of unwarrented search/seizure, incarceration or corporal punishment, so long as you are not advocating outright armed rebellion against lawful government.
I will support the Fairness Doctrine if and ONLY if it is applied to all forms of media. That would include radio, satellite radio, broadcast television, pay TV (cable and satellite), newspapers, news magazines AND the Internet. But if it is narrowly applied only to radio, the only forum in which the liberal media does NOT have a majority of influence (heck, not even a modicum of success, look at "Air America" for what I'm talking about), then I will be confirmed that now that the Democrats are in power that they want to squash and silence the voice of conservatism. And that I will not stand for.
The Fairness Doctrine made sense when commercial broadcast radio consisted of only three broadcasters and their affiliates; ABC, NBC, CBS. But now, with the huge proliferation of information portals the Fairness Doctrine in it's original form (radio only) is obsolete and inadequate. For it to be FAIR, it must impact all arenas of Political Expression. NOT JUST RADIO.
So I will get a chance to see the "Party of Change and Unity" in action. Their actions on this issue will speak louder than any conservative talk show host.
A Bible verse to memorize
4 hours ago
1 comment:
Glen, The only problem with making the fairness doctrine fair. Is defining what is fair. It is much to subjective and I am sure we would end up with mountains of documents/laws that would completely limit the first amendment... Just what we need, the crooks in Washington to define what is fair. I am sure we would need to extend the arm of government to include/support a fairness CZAR and his/her associated minions. Then on top of that there would be financial contributions to the CZAR's organization, and then we would need more government oversight to determine if there are unfair contributions. Bottom line to much government on my dime. They are again messing with the constitution. Perhaps they should take up solving world hunger, seems a like it would be a little less expensive. In all honesty, makes me wonder if the dems are playing a slight of hand. "Lets get all the conservatives on the radio worked up about fairness and while they are occupied with that we can slip a little Y past them"
Out.
Post a Comment