President Bush Booed At Baseball Game

[SMCengineer]

Did I mention freedom of speech? Just because you have the right to say something doesnt mean your not an idiot for saying it.

True, but just because you disagree with what someone is saying doesn't make them an idiot either.

[RA]

So your saying we shouldnt show some respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?

Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.

True, but just because you disagree with what someone is saying doesn't make them an idiot either.

[SMCengineer]

So your saying we shouldnt show some respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?

Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that whether you think the president deserves respect or not is subjective not absolute and obviously those people in the stands didn't think that he deserved it. If people want to voice their dissent, for whatever reason, they should and they're not idiots because of it. In fact, they're most likely doing because of their love for the country, first and foremost, and they feel that the president is doing something they don't approve of. I, personally, have a much greater respect for my country than I do for the politicians who run it.

Like I said, if it was Clinton I would have booed. Especially if it was Hillary. How can you respect someone that wants to do what's she has planned to this country?

[BgMc31]

So your saying we shouldnt show some respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?

Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.

Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't. But it doesn't make someone an idiot for not showing him respect.

And Kfrost, expressing displeasure in an elected figure publicly isn't a liberal trait but a human trait. Being 34yrs old, I expressly remember some serious anger expressed at President Clinton during his tenure. Stop being a hyprocrite!

[fdrx7man]

So your saying we shouldnt show some respect to the President whether they be Rep, Dem, or Ind?

Like I said, I wouldnt have booed Clinton either.

I heart your av!!

[SMCengineer]

Most AM, FM, and TV stations are businesses. If the owners of the business can decide to have a controversial fire-brand doing a talk show and espousing radical views on hot topics, then the owners can budget time for opposing views. .

Yes, they can budget time for opposing views, but shouldn't be forced to. Not in a free market society anyway. As you said, they're businesses and as such have a right to choose what they offer. Let the free market decide what people want to listen to. It's certainly the best source.

They can raise their advertising fees however they like to pay for any $$$ they lose; but chances are, they won't lose much, if any at all.
Talk shows run a couple minutes of ads, then a program segment, then some more ads. They could just as easily run an opposing viewpoint between those ads, and the talk show host could use the time to go take a leak.
The ads still run, the station owners get their $$$, the talk show host gets a break, the listeners hear more than one side to an issue, and everybody is happy, except for the folks who don't want the general public to know anything other than what they tell them over the air.
And yes, this applies to both conservative and liberal offenders.

I don't see what the problem is.

I'm gonna spell this out for you. When you threaten litigation for controversial comments, no matter what the circumstance, you silence dissenters and you violate first amendment rights.

"as a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
-Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 885 (1997)

The goverment has no jurisdiction to regulate speech!

It pisses me off that we tend to ignore history and think "it might be better this time around." Sorry, but history does repeat itself.

[Tock]

Yes, they can budget time for opposing views, but shouldn't be forced to. Not in a free market society anyway. As you said, they're businesses and as such have a right to choose what they offer. Let the free market decide what people want to listen to. It's certainly the best source.

If the radio airwaves were private property, I'd agree. But, the radio airwaves are considered public property. Broadcasters are licensed to use those airwaves, and the Federal government does indeed affect what can be broadcast over those airwaves, such as in the government's rule regulating a broadcaster's political commentary:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/p...adcasting.html

Political Editorials. A political editorial is when a station endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate(s) during a broadcast of its own opinion. (The opinions of other people broadcast over the station are referred to as "comments" or "commentary"). Whether a statement of opinion is an editorial or a commentary will usually be made clear at the beginning of the statement. Within 24 hours after the editorial, the station must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office, or to the candidate(s) that were opposed: (1) notification of the date and time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air.

Nowadays, a broadcaster can legally use its Federal License to transmit 100% anti-(name your politician or issue) as long as it broadcasts the opinions of other people. Without the FCC Fairness Doctrine, it does not have to broadcast more than one side of the dispute. Anyone (or any corporation) with lots of $$$ could pay a FCC license holder to withhold any side of any controversial issue, and the general public that relied on that broadcaster to properly inform him about the issues of the day would be deliberately misled, by a FCC license holder, on airwaves owned by the public.

So . . . if you find you cannot trust what you see in TV news, or on the radio, or whatever, this is one major reason why.
If a FCC license holder does not like Steroid Users, for instance, the broadcaster is free to broadcast an endless string of opinions from other people saying, "We think steroid users are dangerous people," and "Steroid Users have a much higher rate of child abuse," and "Research shows that Steroid users were working with the Germans in World War 2." Rabidly anti-steroid broadcasters can do this without broadcasting any opposing view from anyone who actually knows what's going on.
And the same situation is true for political candidates, for political issues, for anything.

IMHO, Americans are not well-served by a government that precludes knowledgeable citizens from challenging falsehoods broadcast on their publicly-owned airwaves.

Here's an interesting article about what happened to the "public service" in the FCC's regulation of the airwaves, FYI:
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/ml/r...c_interest.pdf

[SMCengineer]

If the radio airwaves were private property, I'd agree. But, the radio airwaves are considered public property. Broadcasters are licensed to use those airwaves, and the Federal government does indeed affect what can be broadcast over those airwaves, such as in the government's rule regulating a broadcaster's political commentary:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/p...adcasting.html

Political Editorials. A political editorial is when a station endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate(s) during a broadcast of its own opinion. (The opinions of other people broadcast over the station are referred to as "comments" or "commentary"). Whether a statement of opinion is an editorial or a commentary will usually be made clear at the beginning of the statement. Within 24 hours after the editorial, the station must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office, or to the candidate(s) that were opposed: (1) notification of the date and time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air..

First off, we need to clear something up. You keep referring to the airwaves as public airwaves, but I'm not sure you know exactly what that means. The airwaves are not public in the sense of a public park or a public sidewalk. Taxpayers don't pay for the airwaves therefore the government (aka the public) does not own them. The airwaves are more akin to a natural resource. It's available to everyone, but you have to have the ability to harness it (ie a radio tower) and to garner listeners. Liberals tried to compete in radio with AIR America, but they failed terribly. The market is still open, but since liberals can't get a hold on talk radio they want to mandate a spot on it. Is that what you call fair? Fairness already exists!

If you continue to consider the airwaves publically owned as in parks and sidewalks, than let me ask you, can the government regulate speech in public parks and on sidewalks?

Now, if you wish to keep calling them public airwaves you'll need to explain how the public came to own them.

Nowadays, a broadcaster can legally use its Federal License to transmit 100% anti-(name your politician or issue) as long as it broadcasts the opinions of other people. Without the FCC Fairness Doctrine, it does not have to broadcast more than one side of the dispute. Anyone (or any corporation) with lots of $$$ could pay a FCC license holder to withhold any side of any controversial issue, and the general public that relied on that broadcaster to properly inform him about the issues of the day would be deliberately misled, by a FCC license holder, on airwaves owned by the public.

Um...you do realize the fairness doctrine was abandoned in 1987 and the FCC no longer has to enforce it, right? The reason it's coming up again is that Democrats in congress want to silence political opposition. If Obama were elected he'd most likely reinstate it.

So . . . if you find you cannot trust what you see in TV news, or on the radio, or whatever, this is one major reason why.

So once the government gets involved again and starts regulating talk shows, TV, and internet than I should trust the content? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Individuals can and should get there news from whatever source they like. If a conservative chooses to listen to a conservative talk show host they shouldn't be forced to listen to liberal rebuttals no matter how fair you think it is. If we forced them to listen to opposing viewpoints it would be a quasi-fascist state. Under the fairness doctrine people would loose their right to listen to hate mongering talk shows. Now, I agree that individuals should get opposing viewpoints, but that's wholeheartedly up to them. If they want to be informed than we have much greater media outlets than just AM talk radio and the liberal media owns most of those outlets.

If a FCC license holder does not like Steroid Users, for instance, the broadcaster is free to broadcast an endless string of opinions from other people saying, "We think steroid users are dangerous people," and "Steroid Users have a much higher rate of child abuse," and "Research shows that Steroid users were working with the Germans in World War 2." Rabidly anti-steroid broadcasters can do this without broadcasting any opposing view from anyone who actually knows what's going on.
And the same situation is true for political candidates, for political issues, for anything.

Bias speech, no matter how hateful, wrong, anti-american, propagandized, anti-religious, pro-religious, pro-war, anti-war, for the troops, against the troops, pro-steroids, against-steroids, etc, etc, is protected from Congress by the Constitution!

IMHO, Americans are not well-served by a government that precludes knowledgeable citizens from challenging falsehoods broadcast on their publicly-owned airwaves.

In a free market, knowledgeable citizens don't have to listen falsehoods broadcast on the radio. They can turn the dial.

Over the public airwaves, it sure does.

The Constitution doesn't give the government power to control what is broadcast. The airwaves are owned by noone.

If you do believe the government has the ability to regulate speech I'd advise you to reasearch the first amendment.:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Tock]

The Constitution doesn't give the government power to control what is broadcast. The airwaves are owned by noone.

Well, we will just have to disagree on that point, and several others.

What was this thread originally about, anyway?

[Tock]

The goverment has no jurisdiction to regulate speech!

Over the public airwaves, it sure does.