Censorship: The New Amerikan Way

[dellinger63]

since Air America and all other attempts failed just censor


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88113

and if they dare ask the wrong question restrain them


http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...a_hearing.html

Welcome to Cuba.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

since Air America and all other attempts failed just censor


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88113

Wait!!! Scalia, Bork, Reagan etc. all worked to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine. You had your way. Now, it's going back. Big deal!! Elections have consequences. IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP!! That's crap. LOL...It's just about opposing view points being represented. It's what we do on here all the time. As it is, you guys spend too much time listening to one view of an issue.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

I don't know anyone who thinks the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea.

Reverend Al Sharpton don't want it.
He knows how stupid it is.

Oh, now you pick Sharpton up off the ground(after you've torn him apart for years,) and use him as an example?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Just amazing how people use him as an example of something wrong, and then turn around and use him to try to prove some Conservative bull is a good thing.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

I've torn him apart for years ?
WTF have you've been smokin' ?

I could have listed the obvious right-wingers that object to it.

That would've made you feel better ?

As long as it's the truth I'll use any example as I please.

Why do you bring up Sharpton? I've never read anyone on here say they like him. So, how would his opinion have any worth in proving anything? After the Tawana Brawley case, it's amazing he gets any air-time at all. One of the reasons that thing in Oakland happened was a cancer like him. He has no career unless he can make it look like the police are the enemy of Black People. So, I am just asking, how is his opinion of value to anybody on here?

[Honu]

The Fairness Doctrine is total bullpucky ..... if you dont like hearing something dont listen to it , if you dont want to watch something dont watch it. I dont like hip hop and rap so I dont listen to those stations , but should those stations be forced to play rock because I dont like crap music , of course not. If someone doesnt like what they hear they can exercise their right to turn it the f*** off.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

Al said it himself. Where have you been ?

You seriously think he wants a righty in his studio, or on his show ?

when have you heard him calling for the FD ?

Put 2 and 2 together.
Lefties are the only ones calling for it cause right-wing talk radio is beating'em
senseless in the ratings.

Quit your cryin' when there are still thousands of places to listen to whoever will
tell you what you want to hear.

This isn't lefties crying. Look who started the thread. It's a response to the Farness Doctrine coming back(only reason it was gone was Reagan, Scalia, Bork etc.) It's about adding alternative views. I don't know how that's censorship.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

"The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. "-Somebody who disagrees with Honu

[Honu]

Why does someone have to listen to something they dont like? Turn it off if you dont agree or dont want to hear it , then you can use another one of your freedoms to put something on that will make you smile.

[Honu]

Scuds the reasoning is total bullsheet dude and you know it , you are just looking for something to debate about .

[Danzig]

actually, scuds is right. allowing the opposing point of view to be aired may be many things-but censorship wouldn't be one of those things. i don't know that the fairness doctrine will fly-it doesn't seem that liberal talk radio does nearly as well as conservative commercially. but the complete takeover of licenses by one side (for lack of a better way to put it) isn't exactly the american way either...

i read the first link. i'd be hard put to think that site is one to really get the whole story from, seeing as that freakish ann coulter is on the page.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Honu

Scuds the reasoning is total bullsheet dude and you know it , you are just looking for something to debate about .

Well, no, someone else wanted to debate about it. I didn't start the thread. Someone called it censorship. It's not censorship. Maybe a kid growing up in Alabama should be exposed to more than just the one view on their airways. You live in California, and you're assuming other areas have our choices of views to listen to. They don't. You're assuming there is access to alternative views everywhere.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well, no, someone else wanted to debate about it. I didn't start the thread. Someone called it censorship. It's not censorship. Maybe a kid growing up in Alabama should be exposed to more than just the one view on their airways. You live in California, and you're assuming other areas have our choices of views to listen to. They don't. You're assuming there is access to alternative views everywhere.

So a kid in Alabama has no other source of information to see all points of view but a radio station? I didnt know they didnt have libraries or newspapers or internet or television in Alabama . I havent lived in California all my life and somehow I have always been able to get information when I needed it . I think they should give 4 billion dollars to Alabama in the stimulis package so they can have sources of information besides radio so that the children of the state can be informed .

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Honu

Why does someone have to listen to something they dont like? Turn it off if you dont agree or dont want to hear it , then you can use another one of your freedoms to put something on that will make you smile.

Whatever your views are, they should be well thought out enough to hold up when criticized by someone who disagrees with them. Most all the bad things that humans have done happened when a lack of opposing views were around. Be it Nazi Germany. Be it when The Japanese were slaughtering the people they did.

[Honu]

Another point also , if I owned a radio station , I would play what I wanted to play and people who bought airtime would know it and if they didnt like they could feel very free to take their buisness elsewhere.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Whatever your views are, they should be well thought out enough to hold up when criticized by someone who disagrees with them. Most all the bad things that humans have done happened when a lack of opposing views were around. Be it Nazi Germany. Be it when The Japanese were slaughtering the people they did.

Scuds , come on , if you are of a certain faith should churches of other faiths be forced to preach your brand if you happen to show up at their church one day? Its about freedom to express , anyone who buys airtime as long as the people abide by the rules of the FCC they should be able to say their point of view without another view if they so choose. , if you dont like it you can buy airtime and advertise you are stating an opposing view and people can choose to listen or not.
Its not like we dont have choices in this country and that is what makes it so great , we can choose to be ,do and LISTEN to what we want as long as it doesnt break any laws.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

actually, scuds is right. allowing the opposing point of view to be aired may be many things-but censorship wouldn't be one of those things. i don't know that the fairness doctrine will fly-it doesn't seem that liberal talk radio does nearly as well as conservative commercially. but the complete takeover of licenses by one side (for lack of a better way to put it) isn't exactly the american way either...

i read the first link. i'd be hard put to think that site is one to really get the whole story from, seeing as that freakish ann coulter is on the page.

Your view is totally misguided unless you live in a time warp. In 2009 there is hardly a lack of access to information or opposing views. In the pre-internet days where there were 3 network tv stations and limited radio licenses it was almost palatable. In 2009 it is censorship, plain and simple. The govt controlling what can be said in any media form should be a scary thought regardless of your political leanings. For some reason Rush Limbaugh drives the leftys crazy but denying him his right to speak his mind is disgraceful. The govt is already seeping into places it should not be and the Fairness Doctrine is a nothing more than govt control of a medium it should not be near.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Wait!!! Scalia, Bork, Reagan etc. all worked to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine. You had your way. Now, it's going back. Big deal!! Elections have consequences. IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP!! That's crap. LOL...It's just about opposing view points being represented. It's what we do on here all the time. As it is, you guys spend too much time listening to one view of an issue.

I have a hard time believing that the Democrats who hold majorities in the house, senate and the Presidency are having a hard time having their views represented. It is censorship better served for Iran or Venzuela. The funny thing is that the left already has a vast majority of its "views" being promulgated in the newspaper and television forms of media. If they get much more "fairness" there wont be any sides of an issue.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Honu

Scuds , come on , if you are of a certain faith should churches of other faiths be forced to preach your brand if you happen to show up at their church one day? Its about freedom to express , anyone who buys airtime as long as the people abide by the rules of the FCC they should be able to say their point of view without another view if they so choose. , if you dont like it you can buy airtime and advertise you are stating an opposing view and people can choose to listen or not.
Its not like we dont have choices in this country and that is what makes it so great , we can choose to be ,do and LISTEN to what we want as long as it doesnt break any laws.

Churches aren't public places. Airwaves are Gov't owned, and people buy a license to use that frequency. They don't own that frequency. So, this is an effort to keep people with only one point of view from buying up all the licenses for the frequencies. From what you're saying, if you're in a Conservative State (where Progressive radio is not commercially viable,) then only Conservative view points should be heard there. No alternative opinions heard there, because not enough people there are progressive.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Whatever your views are, they should be well thought out enough to hold up when criticized by someone who disagrees with them. Most all the bad things that humans have done happened when a lack of opposing views were around. Be it Nazi Germany. Be it when The Japanese were slaughtering the people they did.

I know you live in California but do you really think that the current state of news information in this country is one sided or close to Nazi Germany?