• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread "Fairness doctrine" broadcasting

exactly the same eh? No use of analogy? Not even a little usage of comparative examples? Not even a teensy weensy bit of extrapolation to logical conclusions? Not even a teensy weensy itsby bitsy teeny tiny bit of anything other than a strict 1:1 correlation?

Really?
 
Whiplash said:
The idea that keeping vulgar and obscene lanugage off of the airwaves (which are publically available to all, even children) is the same line of thinking as restricting talk show opinions in any way is so crazy I don't know where to start.
Click to expand...

You can't complain about restricting free speech in one case, and then endorse the restriction of free speech in another.

Well, you can, but that would be hypocritical.


ETA: I enjoyed your "Appeal to What-About-the-Children" there. Gave me a nice little chuckle. :D
 
Last edited:
How is it analagous? They are not even in the same ballpark.

One is about protecting people from obscenity and vulgar talk. It's a matter of decency and dignity. Moral codes and all that.

The other is about trying to enforce some kind of "fair play" in political talk.

How can you even call them remotely the same? To suggest that people should'nt be dropping F-bombs on the air is in any way analogous to trying to regulate what political speech is ok is ludicrous. To suggest that restricting vulgar, vile speech is the same as restricting any speech at all, is ridiculous. The former is at least somewhat defensible. Free speech is too often used as an excuse for some pretty bad stuff. There is a line in terms of decency that is fair to enforce. But no further.

Seriously, I suggest you take a step back and look at what you are trying to spin here.
 
Last edited:
As to the "protecting people" I wasn't sure of the best way to put it. That was probably not it.

I think this "analogy" is missing the point anyhow.

If it's a choice between a world in which people can swear on the air, as well as have full freedom to speak politically.. vs a world where there is no swearing and also restrictions on political speech, I would prefer the former.

But getting into whether the political restriction is fair or justifiable because of the other current restrictions, instead of whether the new restrictions are a good idea or fair or not, is simply muddying the waters here. If you guys want to argue that limiting vulgar speech is wrong, that's another discussion I'm all for having. But this should be about the specific restriction being proposed at this time.

What I'm trying to say is, the net effect of the fairness doctrine (even admitted by a couple of you) is that there would likely be less conservative talk. Not an equal level of liberal and conservative talk. It is likely to end up being a stiffling of free speech in political arenas.

Knowing that, why would anyone try to find reasons, of any kind, to support it? I suggest it's because while some know it's wrong and indenfensible, they know it would be of benefit to their political ideology, and so are rationalizing it.

Call it a strawman if you like, if you guys are simply looking to have simulating intellectual debate on the merits of all these different restrictions... great. But I am simply asking people to think about their motivations and whether or not they are looking to find a way to justify something they know is wrong, because it will benefit their ideological point of view.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
You can't complain about restricting free speech in one case, and then endorse the restriction of free speech in another.

Well, you can, but that would be hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Why?

I don't think there should be child porn broadcast but I am generally against regulating obscenity and I am against regulating political speech. Does that make me a hypocrite?
 
In the interest of "fairness" will equal time be given to every POV?

Should the Troofers get equal time too? What about neo-Nazis?
 
I'm curious how many of those in favor of the fairness doctrine for talk radio would agree that it also should also be applied to print media (like the NY Times and LA Times) and TV networks (like CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS)?
 
This "fairness doctrine" is equivalent to creationists demanding "equal time" for creationism in science classes in public schools.
 
Puppycow said:
This "fairness doctrine" is equivalent to creationists demanding "equal time" for creationism in science classes in public schools.
Click to expand...

I am sure they would argue that the 'fairness doctrine' should give them equal time on any science show. Anti-vacciners and homeopaths would, no doubt, demand the same for medical shows.
 
Cleon said:
You can't complain about restricting free speech in one case, and then endorse the restriction of free speech in another.

Well, you can, but that would be hypocritical.


ETA: I enjoyed your "Appeal to What-About-the-Children" there. Gave me a nice little chuckle. :D
Click to expand...

I bet that even you would want to draw a line somewhere. If not at swear words and Janet Jackson's nipple, how about hard porn on a giant billboard across the street from an elementary school?
 
The fact remains that the RF spectrum is a Commons. If we allowed it to be unregulated, then nobody would ever be able to hear anybody because of course there would be a "arms race" to build the most powerful transmitter.

Now, given that, we have to regulate it. And since we cannot just allow some person with a unrepresented political opinion to set up a broadcast station, spectrum and hence licenses being finite, we need to make sure that opinion, if it represents a sizable fraction of the country, can be heard.

I would ask how you Conservatives would feel about it if every major broadcast network and 80% of all radio outlets were in the hands of Democrats who had no incentive to either sell stations to you or to allow your side any access to the public airwaves?

I am damned sure that you would be raising a hue and cry of epic proportions.
 
BenBurch said:
The fact remains that the RF spectrum is a Commons. If we allowed it to be unregulated, then nobody would ever be able to hear anybody because of course there would be a "arms race" to build the most powerful transmitter.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll agree with that. Licensing makes things organized.

BenBurch said:
Now, given that, we have to regulate it. And since we cannot just allow some person with a unrepresented political opinion to set up a broadcast station, spectrum and hence licenses being finite, we need to make sure that opinion, if it represents a sizable fraction of the country, can be heard.
Click to expand...
But why? Why the hell does it matter if it's on the radio or not? If someone wants an opinion, there's a plethora of blogs, sites and whatnot that will assuredly cover the range of opinions. Nevermind the fact that people are listening to conservative radio because they want to, even if they hate the show in question. Why has liberal talk radio largely been a failure if it had opinions that "represent a sizable fraction of the country" that people wanted to hear?

Crap like this is what feeds the "Liberals want to destroy talk radio" fire that Hannity and others try to fan.

Where's the demand for legislation to offer equal word counts in print media for "underrepresented political opinions?"
 
BeAChooser said:
I'm curious how many of those in favor of the fairness doctrine for talk radio would agree that it also should also be applied to print media (like the NY Times and LA Times) and TV networks (like CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS)?
Click to expand...

*sigh* The Fairness Doctrine is an FCC thing. As such, print media would not be affected.
 
gtc said:
Why?

I don't think there should be child porn broadcast but I am generally against regulating obscenity and I am against regulating political speech. Does that make me a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

Again I will point out that kiddie porn is illegal outside of any FCC policy.
 
Puppycow said:
I bet that even you would want to draw a line somewhere. If not at swear words and Janet Jackson's nipple, how about hard porn on a giant billboard across the street from an elementary school?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the FCC?
 
Cleon said:
Under their own name, they sponsored quite a few pro-war "support the troops" rallies in response to the huge anti-war demonstrations that were going on in DC in 2003-2004.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they were trying to be fair. ;)

Appreciate your pointing out that it's an FCC thing. That gets overlooked now and again.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
I would ask how you Conservatives would feel about it if every major broadcast network and 80% of all radio outlets were in the hands of Democrats who had no incentive to either sell stations to you or to allow your side any access to the public airwaves?

I am damned sure that you would be raising a hue and cry of epic proportions.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that those of us who are against the Fairness Doctrine are conservatives?
 
Darth Rotor said:
Appreciate your pointing out that it's an FCC thing. That gets overlooked now and again.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A friend of mine here in town has become convinced that not only will Obama reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but the FD will be expanded to include blogs.

Sigh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom