Liseli Bakire

OK, Here’s your head handed to you line for ignorant line you posted above:

Timmeh since you STARTED your previous post with this line spare me the snivelling about ME denigrating YOU. If you dont LIKE mud thrown at you stop throwing mud at least quit whinings so piteously that I treat YOU the way you treat me.

Whatever you THINK I am doing the SC decision I cited says DIRECTLY that the public owns the airwaves so I cant understand why you would bother to keep arguing the point. YOU can think what you want the LAW is what the SC says it is and what they said is PLAIN

You state DELUSIONS about the fairness doctrine and it was NEVER attacked as unworkable it was scrapped for partisan free market reasons and no other. IT NEVER said anything about equal time only that anyone attacked had a right to respond and that if a public issue was discussed the other side had a right to be heard. There is no POSSIBLE free speech issue involved since Rush Limbaugh can still lie his butt off as much as he wants he would just have to allow the other side to be heard. NO ONE IS SILENCED just both sides heard. Again why even BOTHER arguing this it was long ago decided the Supreme Court said DIRECTLY that there was no free speech issue involved in the Fairness Doctrine and why in the Red Lion decision

http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/367/

The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others. Pp. 395 U. S. 390-392.

Red Lion was a UNANIMOUS DECISION by the way. The issue is clear since it is a public resource that is given to some and denied others it is in NO WAY a first amendment issue that those USING that resource be compelled to allow both sides of a public issue to be heard. Also there IS a public service obligation there is NO DISPUTE about this. So if broadcasters dont LIKE those obligations they are free to go into the dry cleaning bussiness and leave the broadcasting to those who are willing to abide BY those obligations.

I have gone back and read the better part of the Supreme Court case you cited as well as other material and I still think you are conflating the true meaning of “ownership of the public airwaves.”

There really isn’t an “ownership” per se, but rather a government mandate to REGULATE the use of the broadcast spectrum to safeguard the public’s interest in the use of the medium.

If you read the original fairness doctrine and look at how it was applied over the years, you can see why it was eventually rescinded by the FCC. It simply became unworkable AND the abuse of it crossed the boundary into unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.

This excerpt from the Supreme Court case is very revealing, “…This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326, which forbids FCC interference with “the right [390] of free speech by means of radio communication.” Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.”

What I’m arguing is that it is unconstitutional for proponents of a “new” fairness doctrine to limit my rights by insisting that the fairness doctrine demand “equal time” simply on the basis of the content expressed on various shows.

It is clear that the original fairness doctrine does not require this as can be understood just by reading it and looking at the various FCC rules and court cases.

In today’s world of radio, TV, Satellite communications, and the internet, the conditions present when the fairness doctrine was enacted are no longer operative.

Now, once you let the government have some power, it never relinquishes it voluntarily. In this case, I understand and concur that there has to be regulation of the various frequency spectrums as well as limitations on clearly obscene or other types of speech, but there is absolutely NO NEED to regulate “equal time” except in limited cases where political candidates are given airtime.

If you could ever get over your need to run down people who disagree with you, you might make a halfway decent debater.

Sorry Timmeh. I didnt even know YOU were THAT stupid. Yes the airwaves ABSOLUTLY belong to the people and ARE a public trust this is NOT in dispute nor that there is supposed to be a public service obligation. Obviously, being the moron you are you didnt even look into this you just posted whatever idiocy conformed to your delusional fantasies.

Here is what the FCC itself says about the public service obligation

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html

This Manual is published by the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC” or the “Commission”), the federal agency directed by Congress to regulate broadcasting. It provides a brief overview of the FCC’s regulation of broadcast radio and television licensees, describing how the FCC authorizes broadcast stations, the various rules relating to broadcast programming and operations with which stations must comply, and the essential obligation of licensees that their stations serve their local communities. The Manual also outlines how you can become involved in assessing whether your local stations are complying with the FCC’s rules and meeting these service obligations, and what you can do if you believe that they are not.

In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license.

In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” This means that it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license.

As for the public owning the airwaves I appologize for not realizing you are so stupid I would have to take your hand and lead you through a point any reasonably bright ten year old already knows. I will try to stop underestimating the incredible depths of your ignorance. The Supreme Court said this in language so straight forward even an imbecile like you ought to understand it. Read it and weep moron

http://mib.nic.in/informationb/POLICY/supreme.htm

Operative part of the Supreme Court judgement delivered by Justice P.B. Sawant and Justice S. Mohan on 9.2.1995 in the case between the Union of India & Cricket Association of Bengal.
We, therefore, hold as follows:

(i) The airwaves or frequencies are a public property. Their use has to be controlled and regulated by a public authority in the interests of the public and to prevent the invasion of their rights. Since, the electronic media involves the use of the airwaves, this factor creates an in-built restriction on its use as in the case of any other public property.

That ought to be plain enough for someone as ignorant as YOU. As for your WHINING about the invective aimed at you let me translate from wingnut WWWAAAHHHHHHHH stop treating me the way I treat you guys WWWAWAHHHHHHH only us moron conservatives get to use invective WWWWAAAHHHHHHH, so pathetic a six year old girl would be embarassed to snivel as much as you. YOU toss out the mud expect it back you pathetic loaf.

OK, Here’s your head handed to you line for ignorant line you posted above:

“It doesnt matter WHO owns a network since the AIRWAVES that is the resource being used BY them belong to US.”

The airwaves do not belong to you or to “us” whatever that means. While it’s true that rights to frequency spectrums are auctioned by the government, that is just to regulate the physical aspects of broadcasting to keep “order” as it were so all frequency bands can be used effectively.

“The deal we made with broadcasters is THEY get to make obscene buttloads of money off of our resource and in return they are required to perform a public service.”

Broadcasting is not a “public service”, unless of course you’re speaking of PBS. Hahahahahaha.

“THAT IS A REQUIREMENT that broadcasters KNOW they have an obligation to perform.”

Again, not so much.

“WE democratically get to decide how that obligation is performed…”

Uh, no. You wish! Once again you have it all wrong. You no more get to dictate what’s on the airwaves than I do, dipshit.

“IF the broadcaster doesnt LIKE the obligations WE decide they must perform they can get OUT of the broadcasting bussiness and become drycleaners.”

The problem as always is who the hell is “WE”? You obviously think that just because broadcasters have to follow certain regulations, then they must also have the CONTENT of what they broadcast regulated as well. This just is not true no matter how badly you and the rest of the left want it to be!

Now, go take those meds you so desperately need…

Wow. That wasn’t too hard since most of your so-called argument against free speech was just invective aimed at me.

Pete,

Surely you are not defending Media Matter, are you? They are the worst liars on the left that breath air…

Media Matters has about the same credibility as Hitler did.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Wow how did I miss this posting of GALACTIC level ignorance. Media Matters just makes you hiveminders blood boil becaue they DO have credibility. They back up everything they post with facts and the LYING around here as usual is done by YOU. You are a liar and a fool and ignorant beyond all belief. Thanks for the free clown show other than that function you are completely worthless. Then again anyone as stupid as you couldnt be anything else.

Again with the vintage stupid. You dont know ANYTHING about the fairness doctrine. There IS no free speech issue involved whatsoever in the fairness doctrine the Supreme Court said this DIRECTLY reference the Red Lion decision. It doesnt matter WHO owns a network since the AIRWAVES that is the resource being used BY them belong to US. The deal we made with broadcasters is THEY get to make obscene buttloads of money off of our resource and in return they are required to perform a public service. THAT IS A REQUIREMENT that broadcasters KNOW they have an obligation to perform. WE democratically get to decide how that obligation is performe YOU INSUFFERABLE MORON. IF the broadcaster doesnt LIKE the obligations WE decide they must perform they can get OUT of the broadcasting bussiness and become drycleaners. Of course you just parrot the idiocy that Rush Limbaugh and the other propagandists of the Limborg hivemind have TOLD you to parrot because you are irretrievably STUPID. Try at least ONCE in your pathetic life having some dim idea what you are talking about instead of regurgitating your ignorance over and over hoping and WISHING that it will become true from repitition

You are an ignorant piece of garbage. You spew nonsense and stupidly expect it to become true just because you spew it. Your capacity for self delusion is a sight to behold

Surely you are not defending Media Matter, are you? They are the worst liars on the left that breath air…

Media Matters has about the same credibility as Hitler did.

“…regulation of what goes across the air waves is just as legitmate as regulation of how much polution a company is allowed to expose the rest of us to.”

Are you talking about CONTENT? Are you telling me that free speech should be CENSORED???

Wow. You want to talk about dangers to the republic – they are not coming from conservatives, my friend. It’s people like you who are the real menace.

Explain yourself.

Seriously. How can they complain when their lies are repeated and exposed? Personally, I welcome corrections when I make an errors but, I never claimed to be “fair and balanced”.

In fact, I find it to be insane to “balance” the truth with lies. And it’s not “fair” to give shyte an equal footing with shinola.

Ah, the troll du jour.

Carry on.

Tim Vaculik Says:
——————————————————————————–

Fred,

One of your posts above reveal that you don’t understand what the fairness doctrine was put in place to do. Further, you seem to be clueless as to the effect it had on free speech.

If I own a broadcast company and decide to put on a radio or TV commentary program, I have every right to decide which host I want. They have the right of free speech under the U.S. Constitution.

If someone else wants to do the same, say Air America, they can go right ahead! It’s of no consequence that hardly anyone wants to listen to them! In the free market of ideas, they can put forth theirs and I can put forth mine.

Attempts to revive the so-called “fairness doctrine” are nothing more than raw power grabs just like the tactics employed by Communists the world over! Hugo Chavez would be proud!

I fully understand it’s purpose and for you to tell me that a corporation or station manager should have free reign is what has cause all of the problems we are in right now.

regulation of what goes across the air waves is just as legitmate as regulation of how much polution a company is allowed to expose the rest of us to.

You are just a right wing dufuss who thinks you have a point. Problem is, we’ve heard it all before and you explaining it doesn’t make it any more legitmate than the last fool who tried.

Hugo is much more of a patriot to his country than bush has been to America……same goes for mccain.

Too bad.