Censorship: The New Amerikan Way
 

since Air America and all other attempts failed just censor


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88113

and if they dare ask the wrong question restrain them


http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...a_hearing.html

Welcome to Cuba.

Wait!!! Scalia, Bork, Reagan etc. all worked to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine. You had your way. Now, it's going back. Big deal!! Elections have consequences. IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP!! That's crap. LOL...It's just about opposing view points being represented. It's what we do on here all the time. As it is, you guys spend too much time listening to one view of an issue.

Oh, now you pick Sharpton up off the ground(after you've torn him apart for years,) and use him as an example?

Just amazing how people use him as an example of something wrong, and then turn around and use him to try to prove some Conservative bull is a good thing.

Why do you bring up Sharpton? I've never read anyone on here say they like him. So, how would his opinion have any worth in proving anything? After the Tawana Brawley case, it's amazing he gets any air-time at all. One of the reasons that thing in Oakland happened was a cancer like him. He has no career unless he can make it look like the police are the enemy of Black People. So, I am just asking, how is his opinion of value to anybody on here?

The Fairness Doctrine is total bullpucky ..... if you dont like hearing something dont listen to it , if you dont want to watch something dont watch it. I dont like hip hop and rap so I dont listen to those stations , but should those stations be forced to play rock because I dont like crap music , of course not. If someone doesnt like what they hear they can exercise their right to turn it the f*** off.

This isn't lefties crying. Look who started the thread. It's a response to the Farness Doctrine coming back(only reason it was gone was Reagan, Scalia, Bork etc.) It's about adding alternative views. I don't know how that's censorship.

"The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. "-Somebody who disagrees with Honu

Why does someone have to listen to something they dont like? Turn it off if you dont agree or dont want to hear it , then you can use another one of your freedoms to put something on that will make you smile.

Scuds the reasoning is total bullsheet dude and you know it , you are just looking for something to debate about .

actually, scuds is right. allowing the opposing point of view to be aired may be many things-but censorship wouldn't be one of those things. i don't know that the fairness doctrine will fly-it doesn't seem that liberal talk radio does nearly as well as conservative commercially. but the complete takeover of licenses by one side (for lack of a better way to put it) isn't exactly the american way either...

i read the first link. i'd be hard put to think that site is one to really get the whole story from, seeing as that freakish ann coulter is on the page.

Well, no, someone else wanted to debate about it. I didn't start the thread. Someone called it censorship. It's not censorship. Maybe a kid growing up in Alabama should be exposed to more than just the one view on their airways. You live in California, and you're assuming other areas have our choices of views to listen to. They don't. You're assuming there is access to alternative views everywhere.

So a kid in Alabama has no other source of information to see all points of view but a radio station? I didnt know they didnt have libraries or newspapers or internet or television in Alabama . I havent lived in California all my life and somehow I have always been able to get information when I needed it . I think they should give 4 billion dollars to Alabama in the stimulis package so they can have sources of information besides radio so that the children of the state can be informed .

Whatever your views are, they should be well thought out enough to hold up when criticized by someone who disagrees with them. Most all the bad things that humans have done happened when a lack of opposing views were around. Be it Nazi Germany. Be it when The Japanese were slaughtering the people they did.

Another point also , if I owned a radio station , I would play what I wanted to play and people who bought airtime would know it and if they didnt like they could feel very free to take their buisness elsewhere.