General Discussion

Buckeye_Democrat

(15,526 posts)

80. Quid facis nt

Reply to X_Digger (Reply #74)

Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:38 PM

Jul 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

154 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Time for a 21st Century Fairness Doctrine [View all] ZX86 Jul 2016 OP

Interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing. Something needs to be done. Infotainment is now think Jul 2016 #1

Y'know I'm not even against infotainment. ZX86 Jul 2016 #2

I'm kind of warped. I consider The Daily Show news and Fox News, MSNBC, & CNN infotaiment. think Jul 2016 #3

Not warped. Just a part of the reality based community. ZX86 Jul 2016 #4

In fairness to MSNBC Jim Beard Jul 2016 #41

No. "Fairness" is not the job of the government. Old Union Guy Jul 2016 #5

Fairness is not the job of the government? ZX86 Jul 2016 #7

Getting some strange replies. Rex Jul 2016 #14

Um. The first amendment. Old Union Guy Jul 2016 #17

What does the 1st amendment have to do with this? Rex Jul 2016 #20

Your foundation falls through. The FCC does NOT regulate everything else. Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #59

Wrong, this would be up to the FCC to regulate. Has nothing to do with SCOTUS. Rex Jul 2016 #61

Hahaha as if SCOTUS has never ruled on FCC cases! Hahaha Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #63

So the governing body would be the SCOTUS and not the FCC? Rex Jul 2016 #66

I'm not playing that canard. Setting up straw men & demolishing them is not respectable debating. Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #67

Narrating your on fiction after being told some reality is your problem. Rex Jul 2016 #68

Does tax exempt status equal controlling the churches? ZX86 Jul 2016 #35

They are flailing around hoping for a hail mary. Rex Jul 2016 #69

"Where in the OP?" Right here in the OP you give a tax break to billionaires: Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #89

These right wing talking points are tiresome. ZX86 Aug 2016 #93

I never said any of that. Self-delete your post to drop your un-DU personal attack. Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2016 #94

"right wing talking points" anoNY42 Aug 2016 #103

The first amendment would stay intact. The way I read the OP is that it's Exilednight Aug 2016 #100

Um YES the government is in the job of fairness! Rex Jul 2016 #13

Post hoc ergo propter hoc silliness. X_Digger Jul 2016 #6

Yes I do remember. ZX86 Jul 2016 #8

What do you imagine it did against.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #12

Is there a point somewhere in there? ZX86 Jul 2016 #19

It's your thread, you're railing against such.. so.. how did the fairness doctrine affect those? X_Digger Jul 2016 #22

I think you're missing something here. ZX86 Jul 2016 #38

Post hoc ergo propter hoc again. X_Digger Jul 2016 #58

And therefore what? ZX86 Jul 2016 #82

"Fox News and Rush Limbaugh did not exist before the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine." X_Digger Jul 2016 #84

So what are you saying? ZX86 Jul 2016 #86

I'm saying that you're wrong in your intimation that the FD had anything to do w/ creating RW radio. X_Digger Aug 2016 #97

Regulate? melm00se Aug 2016 #105

Fairness Doctrine doesn't make anyone do anything. ZX86 Aug 2016 #109

I remember Buckeye_Democrat Jul 2016 #11

And you think that's because of the fairness doctrine (memory accuracy notwithstanding..)? X_Digger Jul 2016 #15

Yes Buckeye_Democrat Jul 2016 #21

Post hoc ergo propter hoc again. X_Digger Jul 2016 #25

I think you misunderstand me Buckeye_Democrat Jul 2016 #30

Oh, so your recollection of the composition of hosts had nothing to do w/ fairness doctrine? X_Digger Jul 2016 #32

I'll take the rap Buckeye_Democrat Jul 2016 #36

That radio station(s) chose to do programming that way had nada to do with the fairness doctrine... X_Digger Jul 2016 #42

How can you mention Buckeye_Democrat Jul 2016 #48

It didn't do what the OP (and you) seem to think it does. X_Digger Jul 2016 #52

I'll make it simple Buckeye_Democrat Jul 2016 #57

YES, it would! Fucking duh. X_Digger Jul 2016 #62

Even a late-night Buckeye_Democrat Jul 2016 #72

It didn't work before, so let's do it again; but this time with feeling! n/t X_Digger Jul 2016 #74

Quid facis nt Buckeye_Democrat Jul 2016 #80

Hiring reasons of radio stations is irrelevant. ZX86 Jul 2016 #26

Goodness, who knew that the fairness doctrine disappearing meant broadcast 'without restriction'!??! X_Digger Jul 2016 #28

What's your point? ZX86 Jul 2016 #40

The stated goal of the fairness doctrine is diversity of viewpoint. X_Digger Jul 2016 #44

You're missing the point. ZX86 Jul 2016 #49

You mean operated like you imagine they were ran 30 years ago. X_Digger Jul 2016 #54

What are you talking about? ZX86 Jul 2016 #65

It was called "EQUAL TIME". Jim Beard Jul 2016 #43

Equal time is about selling TV / radio time, not equal viewpoints. X_Digger Jul 2016 #46

Excellent. They absolutism of denial/approval of air use does not work. Too harsh, so not effected. Festivito Jul 2016 #9

Our airwaves cherokeeprogressive Jul 2016 #75

NO. Climate deniers, creationists, anti-vaxers, birthers, and 'truthers' do NOT deserve 15% time. nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #10

What part of responsible parties scares you? ZX86 Jul 2016 #16

Oh, so YOU get to decide what makes one 'responsible'? Lolno. n/t X_Digger Jul 2016 #18

No the FCC would, but you knew that already. nt Rex Jul 2016 #23

The government deciding which speech is 'deserving' to be represented? Riiiight. X_Digger Jul 2016 #27

FCC, being an arm of the government, would be a violation of the First Amendment. Duh. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #37

Can private vendors sell Confederate flags ZX86 Aug 2016 #130

Yes. These determinations are made all the time. ZX86 Jul 2016 #29

I think when you ask the government to make decisions about the content of speech.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #33

Government makes decisions on the content of speech all the time. ZX86 Jul 2016 #45

Actually, no, it doesn't. Regulation of speech must be content-neutral. X_Digger Jul 2016 #47

I think you need to enter the reality based community. ZX86 Jul 2016 #50

In a content neutral fashion. Fucking duh. X_Digger Jul 2016 #55

What's your point? ZX86 Jul 2016 #60

Can't keep up with your own replies? Determining 'responsible people' is not content neutral. X_Digger Jul 2016 #64

Again. The media outlet would determine ZX86 Jul 2016 #71

"Government makes decisions on the content of speech all the time." -- did someone ninja your kb? X_Digger Jul 2016 #73

No. It's both. ZX86 Jul 2016 #77

Government does not (constitutionally) make non-content-neutral determinations, no. Derp. n/t X_Digger Jul 2016 #79

Yes they do. All the time. ZX86 Jul 2016 #81

Oh for fuck's sake. Ladue v. Gilleo, Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, etc. X_Digger Jul 2016 #83

What does those cases have to do with Fairness Doctrine? ZX86 Jul 2016 #88

Get a lawyer friend to explain it to you. Content neutral regulation of speech is permissible. X_Digger Aug 2016 #99

First of all ZX86 Aug 2016 #110

That is regulation of speech. A "voluntary" program with a carrot is a too-cute-by-half attempt.. X_Digger Aug 2016 #136

Can you sell a Confederate flag in a national park? ZX86 Aug 2016 #139

I think you need to research more and post less. X_Digger Aug 2016 #143

Here's a clue. Start a collection. ZX86 Aug 2016 #145

The house also tried to repeal obamacare. That doesn't make it constitutional. Derp. X_Digger Aug 2016 #146

So can vendors sell Confederate Flags unrestricted in National Parks? ZX86 Aug 2016 #147

What vendors *choose* to sell has fuck all to do with SPEECH. X_Digger Aug 2016 #150

Please do not place fear on me or play the "have you stopped beating your wife" gambit. Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #34

You're missing something here. ZX86 Jul 2016 #51

"Simple" -- When you say that it is clear that it is you who are missing something. Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #53

Your critical analysis confuses the point of a Fairness Doctrine. ZX86 Jul 2016 #85

You really don't have a clue. The Catholic church accepts Evolution! Hahaha :D Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #87

No. Fox News could not reject responsible parties ZX86 Jul 2016 #90

DROP the accusation that I am Right Wing. Stop it Now. You want your cake & eat it too. Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #92

The idea that government can't solve problems ZX86 Aug 2016 #95

That's not my idea or my thesis or my statement. Stop. Bernardo de La Paz Aug 2016 #96

But anoNY42 Aug 2016 #104

As with everything ZX86 Aug 2016 #111

I still don't get it anoNY42 Aug 2016 #112

Yeah? So? ZX86 Aug 2016 #115

I would be more worried if it were not voluntary, sure anoNY42 Aug 2016 #117

Not liberal viewpoints. ZX86 Aug 2016 #120

You are all over the place... TipTok Aug 2016 #151

I think the entire Rethug party... harrose Jul 2016 #24

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. ZX86 Jul 2016 #31

I thought corporations needed to pay their fair share? MichMan Jul 2016 #39

I think you're missing something here. ZX86 Jul 2016 #56

I think you're missing something here. X_Digger Jul 2016 #70

Really? ZX86 Jul 2016 #76

There is a corporation behind YT, yes. The Young Turks LLC. X_Digger Jul 2016 #78

Anyone can incorporate their lawn cutting business or lemon stand. ZX86 Jul 2016 #91

So your distinction between 'broadcast corporation' and 'news organization' is meaningless. X_Digger Aug 2016 #98

The only change I would make is that the 15% must be between Exilednight Aug 2016 #101

No anoNY42 Aug 2016 #102

You're misunderstanding. ZX86 Aug 2016 #107

I'm not interested SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2016 #106

The government is us. ZX86 Aug 2016 #113

We elect the government SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2016 #114

What are you talking about? ZX86 Aug 2016 #116

Hmmm.... SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2016 #118

"Responsible" is a word that has meaning. ZX86 Aug 2016 #121

Yes, responsible is a word that has meaning SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2016 #123

There's no list. ZX86 Aug 2016 #125

As many respondents as time would allow? SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2016 #127

Why is this one tiny aspect of such concern to you? ZX86 Aug 2016 #129

Because it's not a tiny aspect SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2016 #132

Who's making it now? ZX86 Aug 2016 #133

Yep, they are SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2016 #134

So racists have the right to free speech ZX86 Aug 2016 #138

Citizens have the same rights to free speech SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2016 #140

So the right to be on the public owned airwaves ZX86 Aug 2016 #142

Yes, and "us" is reliably stupid. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #119

So the alternative is to let ZX86 Aug 2016 #122

I am having trouble discerning... Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #124

Impassioned mob? ZX86 Aug 2016 #126

Damn right. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #131

We definitely need something! karmaqueen Aug 2016 #108

I live in the southwest. ZX86 Aug 2016 #128

Agree,I hope we can win and stop some of the hate. (eom) karmaqueen Aug 2016 #144

What a horrible (and unworkable) premise. Throd Aug 2016 #135

A "little" authoritarianism? Dr. Strange Aug 2016 #137

What's authorian about a voluntary program? ZX86 Aug 2016 #141

Volunteer or be punished isn't authoritarian? Throd Aug 2016 #148

Paying your taxes is not punishment. ZX86 Aug 2016 #149

That's why Obamacare has a penalty. Igel Aug 2016 #153

Wow... TipTok Aug 2016 #152

I would add busting up the media oligarchy. Dustlawyer Aug 2016 #154