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.

 

Another Plan to Kill Free Speech

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
As if we haven’t seen enough violation of rights in America lately! Here we go again!! The global warming bunch, pissed off at all the contradictory evidence lately, is now trying to push the “Fairness Doctrine” again!


Guess who is behind it? YUP!! The American left…


An organization that helped craft President Obama’s environmental policies has recommended the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, purportedly as a method of silencing critics of the theory of global warming.

The Presidential Climate Action Project, or PCAP, last year released an extensive list of recommendations for the White House in a 75-page paper titled “Building the Obama Administration’s Climate Legacy.”


They are obviously going after the political talk radio giants (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck, etc).


Another key recommendation in the report is the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, a former policy of the Federal Communications Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses to give equal time to opposing viewpoints, which effectively made political talk radio unsustainable for any local station.

Reads the PCAP report: “National discourse today is tainted – and in some cases poisoned – by unbalanced ideological use of the public airwaves… To improve and better inform public discourse, it is time for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.”
link

“Poisoned by unbalanced ideological use of public airways?” WTF?? How to you explain ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Gary Null, Brad Bannon, David Barsamian, Russ Belville, David Bender, Alex Bennett, Samantha Clemens, Alan Colmes, et al??

I know there are a lot of FOX haters on ATS. If not for talk radio and conservative voices (we know FOX is conservative too), nobody would know anything about Obama and many other things! There would be no birther movement (good conspiracy), no mention of the lefts ties to radical Marxists like Alinsky, very little talk of corrupt political connections and cronyism (the liberals don’t point them out), etc.

If you’re against SOPA and the like then you should be against the Fairness Doctrine!
What say you?




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

Im sorry, you are mistaken. All the fairness doctrine does is make sure that issues are seen from both sides, that is needed for anyone to use critical thought and decide how they feel about something. This will be a wonderful thing for the people that follow those you listed and faux news.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by acmpnsfal
 


Uhm…we have a thing in US called the CONSTITUTION.


In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[14] The FCC also suggested that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:

The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.
link



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


This again ?



Obama,leave it alone................



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 
If ATS were run and controlled by the left, you'd be banned.


S&F



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
If you really want to see a plan to kill free speech put in motion:



So what does Obama think about the Fairness Doctrine?


"[Obama] Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.


By the way, WND.com is garbage, that site could make a children's primer like Dick and Jane look like an evil plot to destroy America.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
As if we haven’t seen enough violation of rights in America lately! Here we go again!! The global warming bunch, pissed off at all the contradictory evidence lately, is now trying to push the “Fairness Doctrine” again!


Guess who is behind it? YUP!! The American left…


Leftists suggesting a new law?!? Oh no! that means it'll be passed immediately...
that's the thing with the left vs. right....
people on the left are more prone to suggest new laws. the right is generally content with how things are. they are conservative. they don't go out of their way to suggest new laws. on a side note, they both play equally important roles.
of course some crazy laws will come out of the more radical segments of the left. That's the great thing about a democracy...it takes the majority to pass a law. small groups will never be able to institute their crazy policies.
Quit acting like every liberal supports the radical laws that come out of the far sides of the left....just like liberals shouldn't act like all of the crazy stuff coming out of the far right keep saying is what all righties believe.

You know what would happen without the right? there'd be a dictatorship.
without the left? dictatorship.



I love how you're complaining that people are using their right to free speech, btw.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Just a quick thought...

In over 11,000 attempt to amend the Constitution of The United States...it has only been done 22 times...so if that was a batting average...the Constitution still stands!

Go Ron Paul (had to throw that in)!

The Supreme Court is not the law of this individuals rights...the Constitution is...time to get back to basics folks!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Another key recommendation in the report is the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, a former policy of the Federal Communications Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses to give equal time to opposing viewpoints, which effectively made political talk radio unsustainable for any local station.


This is not correct. The Fairness Doctrine does not require "equal time" to opposing viewpoints. This is why you can't rely on biased sites like WND.com for real information. The "Equal Opportunity" Doctrine (which is a seperate doctrine) requires equal time for POLITICAL CANDIDATES on a broadcast network. The Fairness Doctrine only requires that opposing viewpoints be mentioned on a network, it does not state how much time be given those viewpoints. (even then it's limited to the type of broadcast, most types of shows are not affected).

Fairness Doctrine


The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates/


Equal-time rule



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
to be honest.. . Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck need to stfu anyways



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv
Just a quick thought...

In over 11,000 attempt to amend the Constitution of The United States...it has only been done 22 times...so if that was a batting average...the Constitution still stands!

Go Ron Paul (had to throw that in)!

The Supreme Court is not the law of this individuals rights...the Constitution is...time to get back to basics folks!


SO...what do you support? Ron Paul obviously doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine.


The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent conservatives and libertarians who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights.
link



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Well...I suppose if you support (or I support) The Fairness Doctrine...then we would be supporting the Constitution....that is if the Fairness Doctrine is upheld under the Right to Free Speech!

Do you think we actually have a freedom of speech...because I would suggest that we don't...we have an ever tightening rope against even our basic right to free thought!

I support the Constitution under all circumstances...and oppose any acts to prevent the taking more liberty from the people!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



So what does Obama think about the Fairness Doctrine?


What Obama says and what his handlers DO are two different things! Nice try!



By the way, WND.com is garbage, that site could make a children's primer like Dick and Jane look like an evil plot to destroy America.


You’ve gotta come up with something better than that. That was a weak argument at best.



Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false
link



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 



Leftists suggesting a new law?!? Oh no! that means it'll be passed immediately... that's the thing with the left vs. right....people on the left are more prone to suggest new laws. the right is generally content with how things are. they are conservative. they don't go out of their way to suggest new laws.


You don’t hear about the Right’s laws unless you are being instigated by the MSM to react!



Quit acting like every liberal supports the radical laws that come out of the far sides of the left....


Did you vote for Obama??? I rest my case!


You know what would happen without the right? there'd be a dictatorship.
without the left?


There would be a world without socialism and cowards. America would have strong leaders who valued life and liberty. There would be cheaper gasoline!



I love how you're complaining that people are using their right to free speech, btw.

No complaints…just an observation!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

What Obama says and what his handlers DO are two different things! Nice try!


And what WND.com says and what the facts say are also two different things.

Do your own research, Obama has said flat out he does not support the Fairness Doctrine, and has not tried to reintroduce it. Nice try!

Also look at the way WND.com completely misrepresented the Fairness Doctrine. They claim it would force talk radio to give "equal time" to opposing viewpoints. That is 100% false. WND.com has completely and purposely distorted the Fariness Doctrine by misrepresenting it as the Equal Time doctrine.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



And what WND.com says and what the facts say are also two different things.


In your mind? YES!



Do your own research, Obama has said flat out he does not support the Fairness Doctrine, and has not tried to reintroduce it. Nice try!


Do YOUR own research. Follow the money. Obama said Bush was unpatriotic for deficit spending….

That’s what Obama SAID…but what has HE done? Spending from the “Bank of China”?


Watch ALL of the video posted below! Hear the LIES you are falling for and adamantly defending!




Also look at the way WND.com completely misrepresented the Fairness Doctrine. They claim it would force talk radio to give "equal time" to opposing viewpoints. That is 100% false. WND.com has completely and purposely distorted the Fariness Doctrine by misrepresenting it as the Equal Time doctrine.


Did you read the part I posted about it being UNCONSTITUTIONAL??????????

The courts decided it was unconstitutional, so with all due respect, WHO CARES about opinion? You are not the Law of the Land, sir!


The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.


Like your pal, Obama, you’d like to disregard the constitution so long as it serves your needs to do so.

FAIL!


edit on 2-2-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Originally posted by seabag
Ron Paul obviously doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine.


What Ron Paul says and what his handlers DO are two different things! Nice try!




Originally posted by seabag
What Obama says and what his handlers DO are two different things! Nice try!


WND is a crap source. Their agenda is far too important to have any respect for the facts. Obama doesn't support the fairness doctrine any more than Ron Paul does. This would never pass, thankfully.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
The existence of this thread makes a good example of how effective the propaganda against the Fairness Doctrine has been. Totally aside from the issue of Climate Change reinstating the Fairness doctrine would be a great thing for freedom of speech.
The doctrine is nothing new - in fact it worked well for the public and the broadcasters for almost 40 years until it's demise under Reagan with the deregulation movement in 1987.
Far too many misconceptions exist about it.
From Wiki:


The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented


en.wikipedia.org...

Exposing the public to multiple points of view? Oh, the horror!

Let's not forget that the broadcast airwaves are administered by the FCC for the public interest. The airwaves (and by extension cable access) are public property, not private. The Constitution has no bearing on this issue.

The very reason for ending the fairness doctrine has long since become a moot point (ironically enough because of deregulation) due to the massive consolidation of TV, radio and print media.

In 1980 the combined media were owned by 500 different entities - in 2012 they are collectively owned by only 5.

Unless having a corporate agenda stuffed in your noggin is something desirable the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would be both a boon for free speech and for public awareness. It might even help to end the single-mindedness much of the public seems to be suffering from.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comments



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Exposing the public to multiple points of view? Oh, the horror!



Multiple points of view are readily available through hundreds of thousands of TV, Radio and Internet-Media. Some will chose to invite guests of multiple viewpoint, some not. Thats the nature of freedom of speech. Imposing on a radio station what they have to do is unacceptable in a free country. I dont listen to talk-radio myself, but not in my wildest dreams would I consider imposing on their broadcast. If I dont like it, I switch it off.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Are people still claiming that climate change is a hoax? Really?

That's kind of amazing.

As for this, well it's not ok for the government to attempt to impose anything, on anybody really.

But if you want to put journalistic standards into law, yes, by all means.

One of the most important things in our society is the media, and the information that they provide to the populace. It's really wrong to allow companies to lie to individuals regarding important events, politics etc.

It's really a detriment to every member of a free society to not be given proper information, and they should not have to go via 10 thousand sources to find the answer either.

As for this particular thing, it's not quite what I would like to see, but it would be a start.

~Tenth



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join