I thought Conservatives just LOVED the Constitution?

ZappasGuitar said:
This is still America and he's allowed to have whatever views and opinions he likes.

Changing what he posts on order to belittle him only marginalizes whatever REAL points YDM was trying to make.
Click to expand...

They changed to posts as sarcasm, not so that anyone would actually think he said that.

Bfgrn has continually claimed he knows all about Libertarianism, and then shows he is clueless about it.
 
Superfreak said:
we have corrected his false views of what libertarians believe many times on this thread. He continues spouting complete nonsense that show he has no idea, yet he continues to proclaim that he knows what libertarians believe.
Click to expand...

Well, so far what I have gleaned is libertarians views in this context are in direct opposition to our founding fathers.


I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson
 
Bfgrn said:
We the people DON'T decide what is 'ON' them. The owner of the station does. As citizens, we the people have a right to hear all sides of issues that effect we, the people. Only then can we, the people make informed decisions.

What don't you understand about the Supreme Court ruling the Fairness Doctrine constitutional?

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
Click to expand...


You have the basic idea that it is the gov't duty to educate you on all sides of the issue. I would say the gov't has a duty to not stop you from educating yourself, but the duty of educating you lies in your hands.
 
Bfgrn said:
As a liberal, I totally agree with the philosophy you claim to represent:
1. As much liberty as possible without allowing others to intrude on the rights of an individual.
2. Only the absolute least amount of government intervention to guarantee those rights.

But there are so many big hole in your philosophy when put into practice. The Fairness Doctrine is based on the belief that public airwaves belong to the public; We the People. They are part of what is called the 'commons'. They are not the property of any individual or any corporation. The use of those airwaves is a privilege granted by We, the People. That privilege requires as trustees of a public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation in the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves.

The problem you face Damo is #2. Our founding fathers CREATED a government to ensure freedom and liberty for ALL citizens. Government intervention is not in direct opposition to how our founding fathers governed. It is exactly HOW they governed.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect, the founding fathers LIMITED government to guarantee the freedoms, they didn't create it to guarantee the freedoms.

They gave the government specific enumerated powers and listed the reasons why those existed while limiting the use of that power by specifically limiting the range of use. The government "shall not" make a law considering specific things, this is a government limitation.

It is the belief that we have some sort of "ownership" of the airwaves "collectively" where we would necessarily disagree. However, even with that the government still has limitations as to what they can limit. The first amendment does not say, "Except in the case of collective ownership" on the first Amendment. It doesn't say, "Except in the case of collective ownership the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

While you may really want that to be the case, past laws where the government overstepped their limitations notwithstanding, there is no constitutional basis to force people to use the airwaves as Bfgrn really wants them to, especially when there is no victim. Your rights are not limited because Rush can say what he likes without being forced to present your "side" of things, nor is his show the only means of gathering opinions.

Again, you may believe that the world would be better through authoritarian laws that force people to present your views, but that doesn't make your view "libertarian" by even a partial description.

I almost busted a gut laughing when you said first that you believe that the least amount of government intervention possible is part of your own philosophy, your arguments in this thread alone are a clear indication that you are no libertarian, and what you think is "necessary" is beyond any definition of that word that I have ever seen.
 
Bfgrn said:
Well, so far what I have gleaned is libertarians views in this context are in direct opposition to our founding fathers.


I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

Bfgrn, where does the duty to educate on an issue lie?

Is it the gov't's duty to make sure I know all sides?
Or is it my duty to educate myself concerning all sides of an issue?
 
Yurt said:
bullshit...yes they do, i worked in a radio station in college
Click to expand...

Oh WOW...a couple semesters on a college station...

Howard Stern's got NOTHING on you, does he?

Hate to burst your bubble, but as someone who has spent the past two DECADES doing what you did for a couple semesters, I can say without a doubt you are full of it.
 
Bfgrn said:
We the people DON'T decide what is 'ON' them. The owner of the station does. As citizens, we the people have a right to hear all sides of issues that effect we, the people. Only then can we, the people make informed decisions.

What don't you understand about the Supreme Court ruling the Fairness Doctrine constitutional?

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
Click to expand...
"We the People" have no right to force others to listen to "both sides" even if we really really want them to.

In fact, such limitations are directly proscribed by the Constitution.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Oh WOW...a couple semesters on a college station...

Howard Stern's got NOTHING on you, does he?

Hate to burst your bubble, but as someone who has spent the past two DECADES doing what you did for a couple semesters, I can say without a doubt you are full of it.
Click to expand...

nope, i am right, you are wrong. no sane radio station would not listen to whats on the air or have at least someone review a premade statement. you obviously work out of your basement and think you know it all....and what does howard stern have to do with this? i can see where you get your knowledge from...LOL
 
Bfgrn said:
We the people DON'T decide what is 'ON' them. The owner of the station does. As citizens, we the people have a right to hear all sides of issues that effect we, the people. Only then can we, the people make informed decisions.

What don't you understand about the Supreme Court ruling the Fairness Doctrine constitutional?

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
Click to expand...

you might want to update your knowledge from 1969.....the world has changed since then

In 1987, after a period of study, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC found that the
doctrine likely violated the free speech rights of broadcasters, led to less speech about issues of
public importance over broadcast airwaves, and was no longer required because of the increase in
competition among mass media. The repeal of the doctrine did not end the debate among
lawmakers, scholars, and others about its constitutionality and impact on the availability of
diverse information to the public.
The debate in Congress regarding whether to reinstate the doctrine continues today. In the 109th
Congress, bills such as H.R. 3302 were introduced to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. In the 111th
Congress, the proposed legislation related to the Fairness Doctrine would prohibit the FCC from
reinstating it.
Any attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine likely would be met with a constitutional
challenge. Those opposing the doctrine would argue that it violates their First Amendment rights.
In 1969, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, but applied a
lower standard of scrutiny to the First Amendment rights of broadcasters than it applies to other
media. Since that decision, the Supreme Court’s reasoning for applying a lower constitutional
standard to broadcasters’ speech has been questioned. Furthermore, when repealing the doctrine,
the FCC found that, as the law stood in 1987, the Fairness Doctrine violated the First Amendmenteven when applying the lower standard of scrutiny to the doctrine. No reviewing court has
examined the validity of the agency’s findings on the constitutional issue. Therefore, whether a
newly instituted Fairness Doctrine would survive constitutional scrutiny remains an open
question.
Click to expand...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40009.pdf

its a good read on the subject if you care to gain more knowledge about it
 
WinterBorn said:
Calling it the 4th Estate does not make it responsible for the failures of elected officials.

The Fairness Doctrine, in all likelihood, would not have changed anything because both sides of the political spectrum were in favor of the war at the beginning. Only the most extreme liberals were against it. Even those who opposed it, for the most part, only wanted UN support and did not completely oppose the war. Just because you have another voice in the shouting match does not mean there is any truth to be heard. (you can quote me there)



Now, as for the Fairness Doctrine itself, the news is big business. You may find that distasteful, but it is the truth. Now you want to force privately owned businesses to stop selling a product they are selling well, and sell a product you think needs to be sold. How many versions will we have to have? Conservative & Liberal? Republican & Democrat? Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian? What about the Green Party? What about all the fringe parties? Doesn't their version of it need to be told too? If you are going to use gov't force to regulate it so that all sides are aired, where do you stop?

And who pays for it? Rush Limbaugh makes millions upon millions of dollars doing his show. Air America lost money every day it was on the air. Our tax dollars should pay for AA's inability to compete? And if we pay for theirs, do we now pay Rush too?
Click to expand...

I call it the 4th estate because that is how important a free press is to a democratic society. Especially when the question is war and peace.

HOW do the lies the Bush administration fabricated to launch a war have anything to do with truth? The truth was never told. And HOW does only 5 multinational corporations owning all of the media NOT resemble the Nazi propaganda machine or Pravda?

As for the Fairness Doctrine, news is NOT big business. The Fairness Doctrine required licensees to set aside air time FOR news. It set guidelines for minimum amounts of news, public affairs, and other non-entertainment programming.

You are making the false assumption that the airwaves are private property, they're NOT. They belong to all of us.

The Fairness Doctrine is based on James Madison's views of the first amendment.

James Madison (was) the great champion of free speech during the framing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For Madison, the First Amendment was important as a way to ensure political equality, especially in the face of economic inequalities, and to foster free and open political deliberation. This conception of the First Amendment sees free speech as servicing the civic needs of a democracy. Free speech, in Madison's view, expresses the sovereignty of the people. Justice Louis Brandeis, also associated with this vision of the First Amendment, emphasized the vital role of citizens in coming together as political equals to engage in rational political discussion. In Brandeis's view, free speech is not just an end unto itself, or simply a freedom from Govern- ment meddling; it is also a necessary means for democratic self-governance.

The philosophical distinction between the free marketplace of ideas metaphor and the Madisonian notion of a deliberative democracy is not academic. It lies at the heart of the public interest standard in broadcasting. From the beginning, broadcast regulation in the public interest has sought to meet certain basic needs of American politics and culture, over and above what the marketplace may or may not provide. It has sought to cultivate a more informed citizenry, greater democratic dialogue, diversity of expression, a more educated population, and more robust, culturally inclusive communities.

The Madisonian concept of free speech helps clarify, then, why public interest obligations have been seen as vital to broadcast television—and why a marketplace conception of free speech may meet many, but not all, needs of American democracy. As constitutional scholars have noted, the famous "marketplace of ideas" metaphor associated with Justice Holmes presumes that diverse ideas have the ability to compete for public acceptance.

http://benton.org/initiatives/obligations/charting_the_digital_broadcasting_future/sec2
 
Yurt said:
nope, i am right, you are wrong. no sane radio station would not listen to whats on the air or have at least someone review a premade statement. you obviously work out of your basement and think you know it all....and what does howard stern have to do with this? i can see where you get your knowledge from...LOL
Click to expand...

Let's review all the ways the Yurturd is wrong...

Stations REGULARLY run programming that isn't listened to by anyone at the station. They can do this thanks to our friend the computer and before it, Automation equipment that listened only for a sub-sonic Auxilliary tone to switch from one source to another.

IF...and that's a big IF...If the station can afford to pay someone to sit and do nothing while monitoring what gets broadcast, that person listens ONLY for SILENCE. He/she doesn't monitor every single word of every program they broadcast, only for silence, which indicates something is wrong.

PRE-Recorded audio recorded somewhere other than the station itself is checked BEFOREHAND so the station knows for sure BEFORE IT IS BROADCAST that there is nothing wrong with the audio.

The bottom line is station employees are far too busy doing their jobs to stand around listening to every word of every program...despite what Yurt and his EXTENSIVE background in broadcasting will tell you.

:palm:
 
Damocles said:
"We the People" have no right to force others to listen to "both sides" even if we really really want them to.

In fact, such limitations are directly proscribed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Damo...you are ass backwards. The fairness doctrine did not force anyone to 'listen', but it set as a provision of the privilege of the use of the public trust can and should 'provide' both sides of critical issues.
 
Bfgrn said:
Damo...you are ass backwards. The fairness doctrine did not force anyone to 'listen', but it set as a provision of the privilege of the use of the public trust can and should 'provide' both sides of critical issues.
Click to expand...

As has been asked who's to say there are only two sides to an issue? Is there only a Democratic and Republican side?
 
Yurt said:
nope, i am right, you are wrong. no sane radio station would not listen to whats on the air or have at least someone review a premade statement. you obviously work out of your basement and think you know it all....and what does howard stern have to do with this? i can see where you get your knowledge from...LOL
Click to expand...


btw...Howard Stern is mentioned because he's spent a lifetime in broadcasting and therefore much more qualified than some message board simpleton who thinks a couple semesters of college radio make him knowledgeable on the subject, to comment on the inner workings at some radio station.

If I want info on broadcasting...I talk to a DJ.

If I ever need help getting the Boot off my car, I'll call a meter maid.
 
cawacko said:
As has been asked who's to say there are only two sides to an issue? Is there only a Democratic and Republican side?
Click to expand...

You're right. But let me ask you this, wouldn't hearing 'all' sides give citizens the best knowledge base to make more informed decisions? I suspect what the 'libertarians' are not revealing is their desire to limit or silence views that they disagree with, and their fear of the truth.

Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.
Leo Tolstoy
 
Bfgrn said:
You're right. But let me ask you this, wouldn't hearing 'all' sides give citizens the best knowledge base to make more informed decisions? I suspect what the 'libertarians' are not revealing is their desire to limit or silence views that they disagree with, and their fear of the truth.

Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.
Leo Tolstoy
Click to expand...

are you saying that with the plethora of media available today that citizens cannot hear from all sides?

really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top