It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Rejects Fairness Doctrine, But Dems 'Open Back Door to Censorship'

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Senate Rejects Fairness Doctrine, But Dems 'Open Back Door to Censorship'


www.cnsnews.com

The Senate passed a Broadcaster Freedom Amendment to a D.C. voting rights bill on Thursday by a vote of 87-11. But Democrats countered with an amendment that seeks to promote “diversity” in media ownership.

“Senator Durbin’s amendment exposed Democrat intentions to impose radio censorship through the back door, using vague regulations dealing with media ownership,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “Senator Durbin’s language was so broad, it could apply beyond radio to television, newspapers and the Internet. All eyes are now on the FCC. If they attempt to shut down free speech indirectly, we will fight to stop them,” DeMint added.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.topix.com
www.irnnews.com




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
While it is well known and accepted that Democrats want to censor radio and television, the inclusion of the Internet is what caught my attention to this article.

The Un-Fairness Doctrine was proven years ago to be a sad and unhealthy form of censorship and was "done away with" because of the massive negative effect it had on broadcasting.

Yet some proponents of controlling our lives at every turn will never give up and this is just the next step.

www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
I can remember the point-counterpoint days of TV. Time had to be set aside for the opposing view on every issue.

There is no reason or rationale for a Fairness Doctrine. But has anyone noticed how Obama has named O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News openly in his speeches, as people who oppose him? I cannot remember another president ever being so blatant in naming media members that he considered his 'opponents'. What is he trying to do? That is a very unsettling thought to me.

Is he that thin-skinned? Or is he trying to marginalize these people, and others who would criticize him? Is he trying to garner popular support against them? Is he trying subliminal prodding for a Fairness Doctrine?

No doubt, when his policies fail, he will blame them.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Actually as everyone knows that CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and CNN are all on the Democrat Payroll, I don't object to him naming the few that oppose him.

Let's face it, the ultimate goal of the Democrats is to completely destroy the fundamental capitalist economy and insert complete control over the population.

The first step to doing that is to silence the opposition.

What is most interesting to me, is when President Bush would take any action, actually any at all, the Left was constantly screaming about censorship and how the Administration was trying to "shut them up and out"...

Where are they now?

Apparently fair is only fair to the Liberals when it coincides with their control mandate.

Semper



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


I don't think the left ever wanted to destroy the capitalist economy. The left believes naively in socialism because they think it'll help more people. The left are on the left right now because they've seen the abuses of the capitalist system under the Bush era and they want an equal playing field for the middle class. They don't know that there's a better way. But anyhow, I don't think it's possible for the Dems to censor the media. I don't want them censoring Lou Dobbs. They can't censor these people... was there really a time when people were giving points and counterpoints on all the issues? I don't see why they would need to do this. The Dems already have Air America. They don't need more. They have MSNBC and CNBC... so why do they want to diversify the media?



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


What abuses did the see that they can attribute to the capitalist system? Corruption and greed know no economic boundaries!



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
This will not go away. When it comes back it will be called a "Rainforest" instead of a "Jungle". The general public loves warm and fuzzy names! Liberals, who now like to be called Progressives, (another example of changing names) are enemies of free speech and will do whatever it takes to suppress it.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by RRconservative]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
You cats are funny.

After months of hearing how the "ebil Democrat Party" was just itching to reimpose the (terrible, I agree) Fairness Doctrine, a bipartisan vote in the Senate shoots it down by a massive majority.

But you guys don't back off on the alarmism one bit.

At least you're consistent.

We're going to have four more years of the same people who were accusing anyone who contradicted them as "traitors" for the last eight years now trying to portray themselves as some kind of "persecuted minority"


Good grief


I thought you were the guys that couldn't stand that kind of silly victimology nonsense.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


People were saying that the Democrats would try to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine after the November election. Turns out they were right.

They also predicted attacks on the 2nd Amendment (happening), excessive spending (happening), higher taxes (in the pipeline), socializing private industry (happening) and other things.

Vigilance and many letters and faxes to our representatives helped stop the Fairness Doctrine (along with the fact that it is downright censorship- a no brainer). We will continue to fight for our rights.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   


People were saying that the Democrats would try to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine after the November election. Turns out they were right.


What are you smoking?!?

The Fairness Doctrine just got shot down like a lead balloon, 87-11.

Unless there are 87 Republicans in the Senate right now, it's pretty clear "the Democrats" weren't so eager to bring it back after all


But it's cool, keep the fearmongering to a boil, if that's what floats your boat...



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I can remember the point-counterpoint days of TV. Time had to be set aside for the opposing view on every issue.

There is no reason or rationale for a Fairness Doctrine. But has anyone noticed how Obama has named O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News openly in his speeches, as people who oppose him? I cannot remember another president ever being so blatant in naming media members that he considered his 'opponents'. What is he trying to do? That is a very unsettling thought to me.

Is he that thin-skinned? Or is he trying to marginalize these people, and others who would criticize him? Is he trying to garner popular support against them? Is he trying subliminal prodding for a Fairness Doctrine?

No doubt, when his policies fail, he will blame them.


I agree, it is worrisome, did you see what his Press Secretary did to Rick Santelli? He more or less attacked the man's intelligence, and Rick is one of the smartest market men on television. The defensiveness of the Obama administration bothers me, because it's going to cause hesitance in the media to criticize him, which isn't saying much, but imagine it being worse. Watch the media stand idly-by as to not the be on the wrong side of "history."

[edit on 1-3-2009 by yellowcard]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 



Originally posted by xmotex



People were saying that the Democrats would try to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine after the November election. Turns out they were right.


What are you smoking?!?


Marlboro Lights, and I'm down to my last one. Gotta make a run...



The Fairness Doctrine just got shot down like a lead balloon, 87-11.


I know it did. That's a good thing. But it didn't stop the Dems from trying to ride it in on Obama's coattails, did it?



Unless there are 87 Republicans in the Senate right now, it's pretty clear "the Democrats" weren't so eager to bring it back after all



Good. That would have big one big nail in their 2010 coffin, if they had.



But it's cool, keep the fearmongering to a boil, if that's what floats your boat...


Read my previous response, where I outlined some things to watch for. If you call that fearmongering, that's fine. No skin off my back. But check back when you can prove that what we predicted would happen, doesn't.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 



Originally posted by yellowcard

I agree, it is worrisome, did you see what his Press Secretary did to Rick Santelli? He more or less attacked the man's intelligence, and Rick is one of the smarted market men on television. The defensiveness of the Obama administration bothers me, because it's going to cause hesitance in the media to criticize him, which isn't saying much, but imagine it being worse. Watch the media stand idly-by as to not the be on the wrong side of "history."


I missed the Santelli thing.

Yoou're right about the media being hesitant to criticize him. But that only applies to the liberal segment. It will embolden people like Hannity and Limbaugh to expose him. Soon he will have nowhere to hide.

His defensiveness is a sign of character weakness. It shows insecurity and fear of failing. I am afraid of what he will do when under pressure in a real crisis.

Edit: I found some info on the Santelli issue:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

[edit on 1-3-2009 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Marlboro Lights, and I'm down to my last one. Gotta make a run...


Touche!

Yeah actually I am trying to quit myself grrrr....


I know it did. That's a good thing. But it didn't stop the Dems from trying to ride it in on Obama's coattails, did it?


You say "the Dems" as if they were all marching in lockstep, but it appears the vast majority of them (like me) think the Fairness Doctrine is a really dumb idea, and were happy to vote it into oblivion the first chance they got.


Good. That would have big one big nail in their 2010 coffin, if they had.


It would have been idiotic on many levels besides just election politics.
It's just wrong. The government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into who gets to say what on TV, radio, print, or anywhere else, the very idea is horrifying IMO.


Read my previous response, where I outlined some things to watch for. If you call that fearmongering, that's fine. No skin off my back. But check back when you can prove that what we predicted would happen, doesn't.


But for all the fear expressed, Obama is tilting towards the center even moreso in office than he was during the election.

For all the stir about Holder's remarks on the AWB, it's interesting that he received no support (not even a peep) from the President afterward, and that the (Democrat) Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leaders both came out against it almost immediately.

Also while the AWB is a profoundly stupid & useless piece of law (EEEK! pistol grips! bayonet lugs!) calling it a threat to the Second Amendment is going a bit far, it's hardly equivalent to a blanket ban on firearms ownership.

Excessive spending? "Excessive" is relative, right now the economy has pooped the bed, something is needed to prime the pump. Still, "excessive spending" is not something that's the sole domain of the Democrats, unless you were asleep for the last eight years...

Higher taxes?

Maybe for the top 5%, for the rest of us, federal income taxes are getting cut.

Socializing industry?

Now please, we're buying into a bunch of banks because, in contrast to conservative doctrine, the market utterly failed to self-correct and self-regulate, and the only alternative to propping these banks up is to let the entire economy swirl down the drain.

When Obama starts promoting a national airline, nationalized manufacturing, nationalized fast food etc... then I'll grant that "socialism" is something we need to worry about


[edit on 3/1/09 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


I agree with most of what you said, except for the bank bailouts and the spending. I'm not a firm believer in the "too big to fail" argument, and I think it would have been better if the free market is allowed to work.

As for taxes, just wait. Cap and trade will hit every last one of us in the pockets. Nationalized healthcare will come out of our pockets. Higher gas taxes will be sold on the premise that it will encourage green energy. Medicare and SS payroll deduction ceilings will be raised, and don't be surprised if benefits are cut and eligibility ages are increased.

He hasn't even been in office for his honeymoon period yet.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
We'll see what happens.

Personally I'm not the diehard free-marketeer I used to be.

These days I think the idea that "the market will magically fix everything" is equally unrealistic to the idea that "the government will magically fix everything"



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Xmotex:
"Higher taxes?

Maybe for the top 5%, for the rest of us, federal income taxes are getting cut. "

Don't you realize you will be paying those taxes? It is transferred to you when you buy something. They pay lets say 5% more taxes. They pass it on to the retailer. The retailer pays 5% tax on it. You then buy the item at 10% higher price due to the taxes paid by the "rich." On top of that, your company didn't give you a raise because they had to pay such a big chunk to the government. Go head and tax the rich, it only hurts you!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


What are YOU smoking?

The fact that it got "shot down" means... wait for it... THEY TRIED TO REINSTATE IT!

They failed, but they tried. Is that not fact?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
When there were only three networks from which people could get their news, the fairness doctrine made some sense. Now that there are venues for both the left and the right (although there could be more for the numerous points of view that are different from both) it's since gone the way of the dinosaur and nobody seriously wants to resurrect it again. I agree with Xmotex, the vast majority of Democrats voted it down. And rightly so.

I wouldn't get in an uproar about the talk of diversity, either. The language of inclusiveness is popular among leftists now but the resolution says only that it will be "encouraged"--that's a far cry from "enforced." Each side of the fence calls the other side an enemy of free speech.

Don't worry. Rush Limbaugh, who is for all practical purposes the leader of the Republican Party right now, is not going to be banned from AM radio. Many people don't like him, but that doesn't mean he will be legislated off the air, or taken off for any other reason that is not of his own making.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
There is no reason or rationale for a Fairness Doctrine. But has anyone noticed how Obama has named O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News openly in his speeches, as people who oppose him? I cannot remember another president ever being so blatant in naming media members that he considered his 'opponents'. What is he trying to do? That is a very unsettling thought to me.


I agree, most presidents including Bush just acted like they didn't exist. I think this guy is heading in a new direction altogether. Let's not forget what Saddam did to his opponents when he got a swelled sense of self righteousness.

I think the real reason he calls these guys out is he is very insecure of what people think he is doing. I mean he is just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

This guy is way out of his league. I think he needs to go back to the community level and start over. He is wrecking this country and hasn't even been in office 100 days.

Every day he kills the stock market with his wacky trial balloons. Now 1.4 trillion in carbon taxes? You thought manufacturing jobs were leaving fast before? Wait until these taxes that CHINA doesn't have go into effect.

This guy is an Jackass idiot that doesn't have a clue. Thanks Obamanites...




top topics



 
10

log in

join