Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Political Discussion =/= Pornography
#1
Or does it?

Chuck Schumer makes it abundantly clear in an interview with Fox News that the incoming Democratic Congress intends to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, commonly known in conservative circles as the "Hush Rush Act". Talk radio is the only remaining medium in which conservative thought is largely uncontested. Hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and Michael Savage disseminate their views openly and are largely alone on the dial. The Fairness Doctrine demands that for every hour of talk radio by a host of one political persuasion, the station must give an hour for the same price to a host of the opposite political persuasion. Stations are concerned that having to allow liberal hosts to broadcast will cut into their profits. Notwithstanding the fact that liberal talk radio hosts have a much smaller audience, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thinks that it's only fair to shut up conservatives on talk radio. After all, we regulate porn, don't we?

“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.”



That argument is entirely fallacious. It boils down to the idea that if the government can regulate anything, it can regulate everything. Just because we let the government inspect meat in supermarkets doesn't mean that we let government inspect the meat after it enters our kitchen. Furthermore, it likens political speech and discussion to pornography. While I realize that conservative political theory is looked upon as smut by the majority of Democratic officials in Washington, sending the message that political speech can be regulated just as we regulate the pornography industry does no favors for the average American's perception of Washington. When these creeps have nothing better to do than track down rogue conservative talk radio hosts and accuse them of corrupting the minds of our citizens with aural bestiality, it's a good time to start considering your voting options for 2010. The prospects of the Fairness Doctrine's passage are very good with the new Democratic majority and Congress as well as the Democratic president.

Crossposted from ageofpericles.blogspot.com
Reply
#2
Today there are plenty of outlets for opinion that don't require use of airwaves that are leased from the public and required to provide public access and do non-profit public good. There is no reason that publicly owned airwaves should continue to be used like private property, they are not private property and it's time to stop pretending they are.

Let anyone who dislikes that follow Howard Stern into the night. Pay radio won't have those fairness restrictions.
Reply
#3
Yes, silencing Rush Limbaugh is the number one thing on every political leader's mind right now.
Reply
#4
let's see, one thread that mentions Fox and Rush. Throw in the word 'Nazi' and we can just shut the thread down.
Reply
#5
You may not like what Rush Limbaugh has to say , but AM radio was dead until he came along. If the unfairness doctrine is re-instituted, AM radio will once again die.
Reply
#6
It's not unfair and if becoming fair is toxic, let it die. Isn't that the way you want to treat Detroit?
Reply
#7
Is this like the "War on Christmas?" It sounds like another fake issue concocted by the right to keep the base angry and energized.
Reply
#8
Don't you think it's a quite a leap from the statement of one senator to the conclusion that "the incoming Democratic Congress intends to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine"? How strong is the sentiment amongst the other Democratic lawmakers to do this? Not very. Obama has stated that he does not favor its reinstatement.

The Fairness Doctrine was restricted to stations licensed by the FCC. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional. Statements like, "It boils down to the idea that if the government can regulate anything, it can regulate everything" don't come close to capturing the issue. The analogy about government regulating meat in markets so it could regulate how you deal with meat in your kitchen is not at all apt. There simply are no significant similarities between the what the Fairness Doctrine was about and the connection between government regulation of meat in a market and meat in the home. That whole part of the case made is not much more than fatuous and/or inflammatory statements.

I would agree that it was unfortunate for Schumer to use government regulation of pornography as a rationalization for regulating political speech. But you go off track from a roughly okay statement, "Furthermore, it likens political speech and discussion to pornography," to inflammatory nonsense, ""track down rogue conservative talk radio hosts and accuse them of corrupting the minds of our citizens with aural bestiality". The latter is nothing at all the kind of likeness Schumer was talking about. The likeness Schumer was referring to was that just like the FCC can regulate pornography it can regulate giving equal time to those who disagree with political speech given by a FCC regulated station. (At least as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, Schumer is correct about that.) Liberal talk shows would also be required to provide equal time for conservatives to state their views under a Fairness Doctrine. The statement about tracking down conservative talk show hosts is just more inflammatory nonsense.

This stuff about the Fairness Doctrine is just a way conservative talk show hosts have of keeping their audiences riled up. The Fairness Doctrine never was going to be passed by the new congress, but now that they've thrown a big hissy-fit about it, when it doesn't pass they'll want to take credit for shooting it down. C'est la vie.
Reply
#9
I don't know if Stizzealth is this Pete character others are referring to, but if this post is indicative of the kinds of stuff we are going to being seeing posted from him then I'm not going to take him seriously - as I do people like kj.
Reply
#10
If the Libs want to be on the radio then they need to get advertisers and make it pay. No problem. That has been their problem...Only Geo Soros will subsidize their radio programs. Fair market....Just sour grapes on the part of the Dreams that no one will listen to the stuff people like Al Franken or Huffington puts out.

FREE speech and the FREE market place.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)