General Discussion

ZX86

(1,428 posts)

115. Yeah? So?

Mon Aug 1, 2016, 10:55 AM

Aug 2016

Why are you so afraid of some court case, over a voluntary program? I'm sure some nutcase will bring a lawsuit eventually claiming some media outlet wouldn't let the representative from the Man/Horse Love Association appear to make a rebuttal to some story they broadcast. So what?

Not everyone will get to appear on some show. That is not discrimination. That is not the squashing of free speech. As long as the the media outlet is making a good faith effort to have the community's opinions reflected that's all that's needed or expected. Which is the entire point of the program.

This in so many ways mirrors the gun control debate. Many will say if you can't stop all gun violence we shouldn't have any gun laws at all. On this issue people claim that if we can't have all views represented (no matter how nutty) we shouldn't have any views represented.

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