http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...alk_radio.html
Here it comes. The fight is ON!
It doesn't look like it copies correctly. I'll try it again:
americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html[/url]
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...alk_radio.html
Here it comes. The fight is ON!
It doesn't look like it copies correctly. I'll try it again:
americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html[/url]
Last edited by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!; 6/21/2007 at 05:52 PM.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
this is about the 8th time i've posted this: you clearly have no idea about the history of media legislation or the original intent of the Fairness Doctrine. you evidence this in the other thread. why this has become a hot topic for you is not something i care about really, but is surely manufactured by one of your media sources. probably Rush. clearly it's become some partisan issue that you've chosen to wave the flag for.
the original Fairness Doctrine was a result of spectrum scarcity in broadcast media. today, scarcity is not much of issue so the "Fairness Doctrine" issue is handled by availability of different media that are not limited by FCC license and media concentration. in short: competition solves the "Fairness" issue.
“someone's controlling the vibes!"--apache dropout
Isn't worrying about who controls the talk radio market kind of like worrying about who controls the 3.5" floppy disk market?
I'm not happy until you're not happy.
You might want to read that page on the website.Originally Posted by King Crimson
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
you might want to study up on the history of communications legislation in the US instead of getting your panties in a wad every time you are told to.
“someone's controlling the vibes!"--apache dropout
Haha, the war is on dude. You are on the wrong side.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
swing and a miss.
“someone's controlling the vibes!"--apache dropout
I'm rubber.
You're glue.
unclever.
one of us understands the history of communications legislation (and gets paid for it) and one of us is a partisan "I told you so" hack who knows how to bark when told to do so.
“someone's controlling the vibes!"--apache dropout
don't be so harsh. when michael savage says jump, he does. thats why he only sprouts up every couple days with some mindless neo-con hysteria. at this point, rush is a yawn at best.
i make my guitar weep, but my champagne cry
nah, lots of people still listen to radio. the last time i used a floppy disk was at least a couple of years ago. good riddance.
anyway, i'm not exactly happy with the idea of all media outlets being completely run by consumer demand. i mean just look at all the stupid crap on the news, that's because that's what people want to see. i'd much rather have something that was more about information than some political slant or the next retarded celeb scandal
Does that mean you didn't read the whacko website I posted? Since those folks are on your political side, you might want to rethink your position.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
What does the history of which you talk about have to do with the current discussion. OK the past was about limited spectrum. That is no longer the issue. So, now that spectrum availability is no longer an issue, it is about the Liberals attempt to make free speech illegal.
I am wondering when the weaponry is gonna start flying. If I wanted to live in a socialist country I would move overseas and I am really afraid that armed conflict will come to this country sooner than people think if we want to at least keep the freedoms we have. Which the dems and certain pubs want to take from us. Dpn't think it can happen? your seeing it before your very eyes.
OBAMA= One Big A** Mistake America!
Oh I'm clever. Clever Trevor in fact.
You're just grumpy.
If supporting the fairness doctrine is equal to attempting to make free speech illegal, then what would you call Bush's "Free Speech Zones"?
You could be talking about a lot of posters on this board with this phrase.
Just in time to greatly impact the '08 election.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Free speech zones? you mean the areas designated where protestors can go and voice their opinions? THey actually get to do that without being arrested?
The free zones are designed to keep protesters off of others private property. ie: you want to go and protest GW in crawford? fine but the private land owned in the area is not available for you to encroach upon without the consent of the owner.
Fairness Docterine is designed to squelch political talk over the airwaves because one side can't seem to get their programs to succeed. IMO because their ideas are ful of holes and not able to be defended in the world of logic, but again its my opinion. Of course "news programs" such as the MSM don't have to follow this law.
There is a huge difference.
OBAMA= One Big A** Mistake America!
[libz]SCOREBOARD[/libz]
I'm not happy until you're not happy.
Really?
When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.
When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”
At Neel’s trial, police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine “people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views” in a so-called free speech area. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service “come in and do a site survey, and say, ‘Here’s a place where the people can be, and we’d like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.’” Pennsylvania district judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, “I believe this is America. Whatever happened to ‘I don’t agree with you, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’?”
Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, “At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators—two of whom were grandmothers—were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome.” One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, “War is good business. Invest your sons.” The seven were charged with trespassing, “obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct.”
Posting Permissions
