Fairness Doctrine

[Gunmonk]

For a while there has been a little evil weed growing in Americas political system called the fairness doctrine. If you are not sure what it is I encourage you to look it up for yourself and see what you think about it. The fairness doctrine basically is trying to create an equal ammount of air time for the opposite views Now I'm not going to debate whethter there should be equal airtime but this is a law that they are actually trying to pass. this law is in direct opposition to our constitution. So what do you think?

[Thedutchjelle]

If all policital parties get the same about of air time then that's only good, i guess. Otherwise parties with more money can buy more time.
I am not American so i don't have a real opinion about this.

[Protogod]

It's good and bad. It "prevents" the party in power from abusing that power to fund friendly radio stations.

Unfortunately, not only is it a complete fraud, and failure, but it does, in fact, infringe on freedom of speech, which is the most dear freedom to me and any progressive human being. If you cannot speak your mind, you cannot effectively act on it.

[BlackDefiler]

it does, in fact, infringe on freedom of speech
If you cannot speak your mind, you cannot effectively act on it

What do you mean? They can all say what they want. Maybe they'll just have to say it faster from now on.

[Protogod]

No, they can only say either neutral comments, or 2 equally opposite comments.

Like if you go out and claim evolution is true, your network has to have someone somwhere say intelligent design is true.

[AzVortez]

if a bill passes thats unconstitutional, we're all gonna go kill the goverment. simple as that.

[Protogod]

if a bill passes thats unconstitutional, we're all gonna go kill the goverment. simple as that.

Okay, a couple things-

This particular thing DID pass.
It's not always black and white as to constitutionality.
Bills HAVE BEEN PASSED, that are easily questionable in regards to constitutionality.

The government isnt murdered. It's never gonna be that simple dude.

[BlackDefiler]

You mean two politicians stand out and no matter what they think or want to do, they have to say the exact opposite thing?

That would sort of put the first guy to talk in a bit of a headstart. He could say he wants to help the families, and the next guy would have to say he hates families :)

Or you mean they can only talk about things that they don't agree on with the other party?

[Gunmonk]

basically the gist of it is that the otherside must have the same ammount of time to express their viewpoint on the issue. but, if this gets passed it will effectively shutdown all radio statioins because people will have to find opposite parties to broadcast and its illegal to hire based on political affiliationsand they'll get fined if they dont. Plus didnt anyone ever listen to air america it was a flop al franken completely sucked no one listened toit. now all thats left are your rightwing peopleso I guess its not mandating people listen to it its still completely gay

[AzVortez]

if a bill passes thats unconstitutional, we're all gonna go kill the goverment. simple as that.

Okay, a couple things-

This particular thing DID pass.
It's not always black and white as to constitutionality.
Bills HAVE BEEN PASSED, that are easily questionable in regards to constitutionality.

The government isnt murdered. It's never gonna be that simple dude.

well, i wasnt being literal :(
although seriously, i cant wait till bush is kicked outta the administration.
as for those unconstitutional bills, we got the judicial branch, right?

[Protogod]

Which has multiple people appointed by bush, and more who support him.

[GenocideAlive]

This will never be implemented on any scale that matters. It's yet another facade by pseudo-Christians to permit the teaching of Christianity in schools under the guise of "I.D.". Parents are getting scared because they don't want 14-year-old Sally to have sex but they're impotent to stop her so they want Jesus around to tell Sally she's going to burn in Hell if she does. Unfortunately, they halfassed Jesus up until now, so they missed a few spots when they were washing Sally's brain and they need the school to take up the slack. Will never work, just like that People from Pandas bullshit.

[Prozerran]

This will never be implemented on any scale that matters. It's yet another facade by pseudo-Christians to permit the teaching of Christianity in schools under the guise of "I.D.". Parents are getting scared because they don't want 14-year-old Sally to have sex but they're impotent to stop her so they want Jesus around to tell Sally she's going to burn in Hell if she does. Unfortunately, they halfassed Jesus up until now, so they missed a few spots when they were washing Sally's brain and they need the school to take up the slack. Will never work, just like that People from Pandas bullshit.

What exactly does this have to do with anything? Just from reading this thread, I'm trying to decipher why this is relevant. Fairness Doctrine is something I'm for in many respects. It promotes expression and distinction between political candidates, allowing equal time for candidates to get straight to the point and not bullshit around like Bush and Kerry did in '04.

I may need to know more about it (any links? did I miss them?), but the drawbacks don't seem to be as problematic or "unconstitutional" in the sense it's been uttered here. So Liberal radio talkshows must allow Republicans equal time. Liberals are dying to have Republicans on their shows as it is, just so radio hosts can earn those extra ratings by avoiding the issues and complaining about Iraq, Bush, etc... And what about Conservative stations? It's about damn time someone make a conservative station offer objective positions during campaigns. Interviewing Republicans and NOT interviewing Democrats, rarely interviewing Independants, etc. is just gross subjectivity.

Give us the information. We're all voters in this country, and we're entitled to the whole truth.

And this is all what I've gotten out of the thread so far. Some support in the form of links would be helpful here so we all know what the hell we're talking about.

[GenocideAlive]

I'm going to avoid any insults. But to make a long story short, Fairness Doctrine is a not-so-subtle ploy for people with unscientific arguments to gain a foothold in people's minds. Given that not every person is a scientist in various categories, they lack the ability to discern what yields fact or fiction. They rely on scientists to do so and give them the summary.

Fairness Doctrine, on the other hand, will permit people using science-sounding bullshit to "compete" with proven scientific theory. The uninitiated public will then be able to "choose" between real science and science they "choose to believe". The result will be corrupted science, or theories and practices chosen not for their soundness, but for their popularity. This will then take power from facts and truth and throw them to the media, making it necessary for every idea to get an agent.

I'm not entirely sure what future in science you can forsee using Fairness Doctrine, but I assure you that we would not be where we are today if it were in place for all of time. The relative value of varying ideas is not "fair".

[ecyor0]

No, they can only say either neutral comments, or 2 equally opposite comments.

Like if you go out and claim evolution is true, your network has to have someone somwhere say intelligent design is true.

I would be contrary there and say that evolution and intelligent design, while not harmonious, are certainly not mutually exclusive. After all, even with evolution, you still can't answer the question "How did life arise in the first place?"

This of course raises another question - how do you decide whether two views are different (meriting equal time slots) or merely different facets of the same view (meaning they should only have half a slot between them).

Once again, the fallacy of trying to categorise the human psyche into neat little cubicles shows itself

[ChaosZon]

GA the Fairness Doctrine has to do with political commentary in the media, not faith-based programs being subsidized by government money.

I do like how you call them pseudo-Christians based on nothing more than your political disagreement with them. That's... intelligent. Rofl.

The Fairness Doctrine blatantly violates the First Amendment. There are no redeeming features to it. It mandates that equal air time be attributed to political viewpoints on a given media outlet.

Example: If your radio station runs 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh every day, it must also run 3 hours of Al Franken.

In effect the Fairness Doctrine kept political commentary off the radio and off the TV. Stations simply didn't put on political commentary because it wasn't profitable to put on a conservative and then a liberal and because if they just put on a conservative or just a liberal the FCC would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

In 1987 Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine and political talk radio exploded from something like 400 stations carrying political programs to more than 1400 and growing still today.

The vast majority of these programs are conservative in nature, because for whatever reason people just don't tune into liberal talk radio. The market has spoken, and it has spoken for Rush Limbaugh. Which is probably why the anti-capitalist Prozerran is all for reinstating it.

Bills HAVE BEEN PASSED, that are easily questionable in regards to constitutionality

Name one. Besides of course McCain-Feingold, that bill is a total violation of the First Amendment. Besides that, I can't think of a single unconstitutional law passed by Congress since Bush became president. Parts of several laws have been called unconstitutional and re-worked or the judgment was overturned on appeal.

And McCain-Feingold was passed in 2000, wasn't it?

Which has multiple people appointed by bush, and more who support him.

Which is completely irrelevant. Your opinion < Supreme Court's opinion. If you disagree with the Court, that's really too bad. You can't say that any of the judges on the Court are unqualified to be there. You also can't say that for (most) of the lower federal appeals court judges.

This political unreality - that you can simply declare something to be something because you believe that way, and won't give it up no matter what - will come back to bite Americans in the ass eventually.

[GenocideAlive]

I do like how you call them pseudo-Christians based on nothing more than your political disagreement with them. That's... intelligent. Rofl.
I didn't recall seeing any impetus in the New Testament to lie in order to promote Christianity. Especially in public forums that would contextually be force-feeding Christianity to every child in public school systems. Jesus never opened up a school of Godscience. What's really "rofl" worthy is partisan Internet bickering pros running around trying to label what's "intelligent" based on their personal summary of posteriori. Thanks for posting.

[ChaosZon]

I didn't recall seeing any impetus in the New Testament to lie in order to promote Christianity.

Just what are you referring to? I don't recall the Fairness Doctrine having anything to do with Christianity, it is concerned with air time for political commentary on public radio and television.

Especially in public forums that would contextually be force-feeding Christianity to every child in public school systems.

What's funny is now you're lying.

The president's allowing of taxpayer money to subsidize faith-based programs has nothing to do with curriculum, it has to do with Christian after-school programs being allowed to use public school property and being partially subsidized by public money the way many totally secular after-school programs are.

If what you're referring to is various school boards controlled by fundamentalists trying to put Creationism on an equal footing in public school classrooms as evolution, that's a completely different issue removed entirely from those after-school programs. Both of which, by the way, have absolutely nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

So not only are you a liar, you're an ignorant liar to boot. Really, did you honestly the Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with public school curricula? How could you, such an impressive intellectual specimen, a "microbiologist," be so ignorant?

What's really rofl worthy is a "microbiologist" tough guy wannabe like you. I ran rings around you at BF, I'll do it here too. You're inadequate, get over it.

I wonder how long I have to show you up repeatedly before you go whine to AJ about how I don't let you run roughshod over little kids on the internet with your barely college-level vocabulary and massive ego. I think a week at the most before you can't handle it anymore, you were pretty thin-skinned from what I remember at BF.

[GenocideAlive]

Just what are you referring to? I don't recall the Fairness Doctrine having anything to do with Christianity, it is concerned with air time for political commentary on public radio and television.
How is it that I write a reply quoting your remarks regarding my stance on Christianity in the classroom, and you start swerving Fairness Doctrine in the middle of it? Hint: I quote it because I'm replying to it.
What's funny is now you're lying.

If what you're referring to is various school boards controlled by fundamentalists trying to put Creationism on an equal footing in public school classrooms as evolution, that's a completely different issue removed entirely from those after-school programs. Both of which, by the way, have absolutely nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.
Wow, and who decided this? You? The Christian Trumpeteer?

Hey, hey, everybody, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, those two items are completely unrelated. Go about your business, nothing to see here. ChaosZon says we don't have to worry and anybody that disagrees is a liar based solely on his sayso.

No thanks, I think I'll read between the lines. I'll leave the rest of your post intact as a demonstration of what kinds of overzealous braggadicco can do to ruin an intellectual forum. If I start getting PMs about your trolling, I may have to do something, but otherwise it doesn't bother me. I could ban you outright and admin would have no problem--they may eventually do it themselves. But that you keep bringing up my profession suggests an inferiority complex.

That's kind of funny. :)

[ecyor0]

Hhmm.

Funny thing here is that what most people think of as fundamentalist Christians would actually be considered extremist by the real fundamentalist Christians (and by "real fundamentalist Christians" I mean Christians whose faith is fundamental - i.e, God is real, the Bible is truth, and Jesus is Salvation: the rest is details)

[ChaosZon]

How is it that I write a reply quoting your remarks regarding my stance on Christianity in the classroom, and you start swerving Fairness Doctrine in the middle of it? Hint: I quote it because I'm replying to it.

How is it that Christian theology being taught in the classroom has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine period and you've been off-topic? Are off-topic random posts about entirely different topics par for the course in this SD? Is that how you run things? I'm not impressed.

Wow, and who decided this? You? The Christian Trumpeteer?

That's not a response, as neither Christian teachings in public schools or Christian after-school programs have nothing at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine, which is the topic of this thread.

Are you conceding?

How did you ever become a moderator? You can't even keep on topic.

Hey, hey, everybody, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, those two items are completely unrelated. Go about your business, nothing to see here. ChaosZon says we don't have to worry and anybody that disagrees is a liar based solely on his sayso.

The problem here is that the Fairness Doctrine literally has nothing to do with public schools.

Nothing. Whatsoever.

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

So I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about those other things, just that you are mistaken in thinking that the Fairness Doctrine has anything to do with them.

You're doing a fine job of making an ass out of yourself though. Way too easy to show you up.

No thanks, I think I'll read between the lines.

There are no lines to read between, the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with public education.

I'll leave the rest of your post intact as a demonstration of what kinds of overzealous braggadicco can do to ruin an intellectual forum.

There's certainly nothing more intellectual than making a mistake like you did and refusing to admit to it.

If I start getting PMs about your trolling, I may have to do something,

I'm real scared.

but otherwise it doesn't bother me. I could ban you outright and admin would have no problem--they may eventually do it themselves.

I doubt it as I'm not a troll. You can feel free to overstep your bounds any time, though.

But that you keep bringing up my profession suggests an inferiority complex.

What it means, not suggests, is that I enjoy mocking your massive ego and how you tried to impress everyone with how smart you are at BF by telling us you were a microbiologist and no one was impressed and you left after throwing numerous temper tantrums because no one acknowledged your obvious superiority.

[Protogod]

I'm real scared.'
I doubt it as I'm not a troll. You can feel free to overstep your bounds any time, though.

Actually, I've reported half the posts you made since yesterday. I, personally, found them to be overwhelming, even for one with an ego such as mine.

No hard feelings, but you arent trying to be productive, and its clear your after genocide. It'd be best fo rall of us if you just went back to BF.

[Dark_Soul74]

The problem here is that the Fairness Doctrine literally has nothing to do with public schools.You're right, if you completely ignore the fact that they're both topics the Fairness Doctrine would mandate the support of, if anyone happened to mention evolution or seperation of church and state on the radio. Making the same failed point over and over again does nothing for you.

I wonder how long I have to show you up repeatedly before you go whine to AJ about how I don't let you run roughshod over little kids on the internet with your barely college-level vocabulary and massive ego.The only reason I can see you being banned for is pissing off everyone else on WarBoards with crap like this. After all, nobody likes a troll, and considering how often you've been attacking GA baselessly(and definitely haven't been "showing him up"), I'm astounded at how patient he's being with you, athough it'd surprise me if he was the first to ban you. Besides, on the topic of vocabularies, the words "impetus", "posteriori", and "braggadicco" are at a much higher level than your favorites: "rofl" and "microbiologist".

If you're wondering why I'm posting here of all times, I like to lurk the IR sometimes, and it really annoys me to find people who use "rofl" in serious debate, can't remember where commas go, and still think they have the right to assert that their properly-speaking opponent has poor speaking-skills. Never before have I seen so much ad hominem in a post before, let alone the other logical fallacies you're sprinkling about like candy, along with the standard lack of intelligence.

Now then, on to my opinion on the topic, rather than the posters.... I honestly think the Fairness Doctrine has a good basis. Letting out ideas in a fair manner. However, I also realize that "fair" is nearly impossible to decide, and a true fair sharing of ideas is unrealistic unless you wish to include things without any real merit, therefore making the idea as a whole a failure. It's sad of course, but a fairness doctrine like the one discussed is far too costly, difficult to run, damaging to freedom of speech, and damaging to intellectual discussion.

Oh, and before I forget:
Besides that, I can't think of a single unconstitutional law passed by Congress since Bush became president.lol Patriot Act.

[Gunmonk]

I wonder how long I have to show you up repeatedly before you go whine to AJ about how I don't let you run roughshod over little kids on the internet with your barely college-level vocabulary and massive ego

GA doesnt whine he bans and infract heavily, I would know. The fairness doctrine is nothing more than what pre communist russia would have been llike america is leaning more and more towards fascism.

[GenocideAlive]

For the people that are posting questions, I simply would like to state that the reason I permit ChaosZon to continue because I don't think he really requires any moderation action. His only real interest is to follow me around trying to twist my every word into a somersault for an imaginary highlight reel playing in his head. His behavior amounts to the equivalent of a child begging for attention.

I clearly give him some kind of inferiority complex, and his fanatical obsession with "besting" me at every turn harms no-one. It could be interpreted as harming me, but honestly the exaggerated, hyperbolic nature of his every word only makes them easier to ignore. I could have banned him long ago, but honestly that would only fuel his fantasy of our non-existant duel. If you as members seriously dislike him and would like him out of the IR, let me know.

Otherwise, I have no problem with letting him hold up his cartoony little "I hate Genocide" signs.

[Protogod]

If you as members seriously dislike him and would like him out of the IR, let me know.

I dislike him, and would like him out of the IR, not to mention, Warboards.

[3Vee]

although seriously, i cant wait till bush is kicked outta the administration.

Because we actually have a two party system still! The Democans and Republicrats, or something like that. Seriously, it's gotten to the point where the only difference is that a Republican says "God" once in a while, probably pretends gays don't exist, and doesn't have a clue what he thinks and rather less of one about what his constituents think. Meanwhile, the Democrat looks nervous if a friend mentioned a "higher power", forgets that straight people exist, doesn't know what he thinks and probably doesn't know what his constituents think either. But it doesn't matter: whatever his position, it's a cushy job, and as long as he (or she) looks like she (or he) is doing something, it's all good. Okay, so I'm exaggerating and stereotyping. But imo, it's the system that's broken and causing problems, particular politicians are just symptomatic.

as for those unconstitutional bills, we got the judicial branch, right?

Well, assuming judicial review is constitutional... which various people aregue with... :rolleyes: But yes. Actually, I think originally their was an idea that the President was supposed to be the first barrier to unconstitutional legislation. But w/e.

And the Fairness Doctrine is pretty much bunk. Well-intentioned bunk, and well-supported because everybody sees an advantage. "Oh look, we can get our theories into textbooks!" "Oh look, we can get our opinions on the air!"

Reminds me of the older legislation about school sports programs, and equal numbers of programs for men and women. Did it have benefits? Yes. Did it sound like a really good idea? Sure. Did it have unexpected drawbacks? Darn right. Programs cut, programs added without any attention to quality of instruction, etc. Did the government have any business doing anything about the question in the first place? Um. Well. You see...

So what we have here: Will it have benefits? Yes. Getting alternate viewpoints out is always a good thing. Does it sound like a really good idea? Yes. Everybody wins! Does it have drawbacks nobody wants to think about? Yes: for every page put in, every minute of airtime used, somebody else doesn't get to say something. Does the government have any business passing this legislation? No way. See 1st Amendment.

It's a rather more interesting question whether, if it hadn't been specifically banned (not that the ban actually did anything), legislation like this would be a good idea. As it stands, it's in conflict with the standing laws. But if it weren't?