Talk Radio - No Fair!!!

[Drifter]

See Have At You's post on the first page of the thread, and some of the discussion on the second...

Hmm... I'm not sure the 'chilling' effect would be such a bad thing these days. Though I admit I'm rather on the fence on the actual subect of the Fairness Doctrine itself. My main point was that the debate isn't a 1st ammendment debate, that line of thinking would be akin to arguing that adult bookstores should be allowed to build shops in national parks. As a side note here are some links about the doctrine.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/...irnessdoct.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Yes, as I said, it sounds great in theory, but had unintended consequences.

Fairness is one of those concepts which, like unicorns and pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, is very appealing to us but really exists only in fantasy. Trying to reify it with an actual law was laden with good intentions but seemed only to nudge us farther toward the unfortunate destination of the road paved with same...

If that sounds unduly sour and cynical, note my title.

Yes very curmungeony of you Just because we haven't found any unicorns yet doesn't mean we should stop looking for them, metaphorically of course.

[Have At You]

My main point was that the debate isn't a 1st ammendment debate, that line of thinking would be akin to arguing that adult bookstores should be allowed to build shops in national parks.

You're missing the point.

Your position, if I understand it, is that because the government owns the airwaves, it has a say in how it will allow those airwaves to be used.

But that's not the argument. The argument is not whether the government lawfully MAY regulate the airwaves. The argument is whether the government OUGHT to regulate the airwaves in this particular way.

Just because they may have the power, that doesn't mean they ought to exercise it in this fashion.

[Drifter]

You're missing the point.

Your position, if I understand it, is that because the government owns the airwaves, it has a say in how it will allow those airwaves to be used.

But that's not the argument. The argument is not whether the government lawfully MAY regulate the airwaves. The argument is whether the government OUGHT to regulate the airwaves in this particular way.

Just because they may have the power, that doesn't mean they ought to exercise it in this fashion.

Not quite. I'm saying that anyone who sees this as a freedom of speech issue is not aware of the facts regarding the radio spectrum's classification as a natural resource and the requirement that all natural resources be available for use by all citizens of the country. This isn't really debatable, its an established fact.

That does not mean that the government can't place regulations on how the resource is used but it does mean that no particular group can be excluded from use of the natural resource to the benefit of another. It's that simple really. Another example would be a situation where oil companies decided only to sell gasoline to one specific segment of society. That would be a similar situation.

Again, I'll mention I'm not really in favor or against the doctrine itself, I'm merely pointing out that a 1st amendment argument has nothing to do with this issue.

[Inquartata]

Meh, I guess I'll be vacationing at Camp David this summer, then.

[jeff]

Say "Hi!" to Scooter, then...

[theLuz]

News Flash: the truth has a liberal bias.

wow! what flavor Kool-Aid is that? It must be really powerful.........