Reid wants to register bloggers

[Universe Prince]

It was my understanding that the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC.  The various radio and TV stations are licensed to use them, but they do not OWN them.   That's why it is vital to have the Fairness Doctrine. 

Maybe I'm missing something. How does the FCC licensing radio frequencies make the "Fairness Doctrine" vital? Seems to me if the airwaves belong to the public, then the public's liberty to use them to exercise First Amendment rights should be protected and not abridged. Which would make vital actually not having a "Fairness Doctrine".

[sirs]

It was my understanding that the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC.  The various radio and TV stations are licensed to use them, but they do not OWN them.   That's why it is vital to have the Fairness Doctrine.  Unless you  have a source to prove what you said....?

The source is the doctrine itself....it suppresses the 1st amendment.  Apparently tolerance of speech by the left is only when it's speech the left agrees with or deems "truthful".  Why isn't it applicable to Higher education?  Why isn't it applicable to Hollywood & documentaries?  The why is that those other areas are already predominantly liberal in their POV.  No need for "fairness" to be applied there.  and unless a station provides a Franken to every Rush, the POV of 1 is suppressed.  You don't like Rush, or Hannity, or Elder, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM.  You want another POV to listen to, listen to those others that offer them.  Oh wait, no one wants to, which is why their ratings tank.  Ahhh, we can get around that......the win-win "Fairness doctrine".  People must listen to Franken, or else they can't listen to Rush

You must have been referencing yourself earlier when you claimed Bush said the Constitution was just some piece of paper.  Obviously the 1st amendment means squat to you and brass

[Lanya]

When both sides get an equal amount of time, an equal chance, to speak: That is fair.   

Otherwise, it isn't.   That is the essence of the Fairness Doctrine.  Eisenhower had no problem with it, so you have no basis for your claim that it's all an eeeevil plot by libruls.   

Unless you think your point of view is special and has to have special privileges?  More time, perhalps?  More channels, owned by conglomerates? 

[Amianthus]

When both sides get an equal amount of time, an equal chance, to speak: That is fair.   

So, you're good with creationists in schools? Nazis at political rallies?

[Plane]

When both sides get an equal amount of time, an equal chance, to speak: That is fair.   

Otherwise, it isn't.   That is the essence of the Fairness Doctrine.  Eisenhower had no problem with it, so you have no basis for your claim that it's all an eeeevil plot by libruls.   

Unless you think your point of view is special and has to have special privileges?  More time, perhalps?  More channels, owned by conglomerates? 

Who decides what equal is?

Rush Limbaugh is self supporting because he has an otherwise underserved market. Al Frankens show is gone under not because God lent him less talent , but because there were fewer people interested.

[Lanya]

By the way, see http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/2007/01/blogger_registr.html
Professor Bainbridge on the 'registering bloggers' thing.
And it is moot because Bennet (R, Utah) added something to the bill that would strip the grassroots provision, and it passed.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00017

[sirs]

When both sides get an equal amount of time, an equal chance, to speak: That is fair.    Otherwise, it isn't.   

That might be "fair" to a liberal but that is completely counter what the 1st amendment is all about!!  READ CAREFULLY what you're advocating Lanya.  To suppress another's speech that they don't like, unless another one that they do is provided equal time, trashes the foundation of the 1st amendment.  I realize why you like it, just so sad how that you actually hate folks like Rush & Hannity more than you care for the Bill of Rights. 

What was that phrase about "I may not respect what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".  That concept simply doesn't exist in the liberal land of intolerance now, does it

[Universe Prince]

When both sides get an equal amount of time, an equal chance, to speak: That is fair.

That assumes there are only two sides to the issue. But let's take that assumption for now. When both sides get an equal chance to speak, that is fair. Yes, it is. When the person offering his opinion is forced by law to find someone to contradict him or else he is not allowed to speak at all, that is not fair at all. But that is what you're asking for. You're asking for the government to decide that someone's freedom of speech be abridged unless he meets some arbitrary idea of "fairness". And Amianthus brought up good questions. If you're so interested in making sure both sides get an equal chance to speak, does this mean you're going to support the teaching of creation in science classes as an alternative to evolution? That would be fair, according to what you have said. I wonder if you want to see pro-choice rallies forced to give equal time to anti-abortion activists. Do you want spouse abusers and pedophiles given equal time in the name of fairness? I doubt it, but please, speak up for yourself and let the rest of us know just how far you expect this "fairness" to be carried out.

Unless you think your point of view is special and has to have special privileges?  More time, perhalps?  More channels, owned by conglomerates? 

Um, Lanya, you're the one arguing for points of view to get special privileges. Rush Limbaugh et al do nothing at all that stops you from getting your opinions out to the people.

[sirs]

You're asking for the government to decide that someone's freedom of speech be abridged unless he meets some arbitrary idea of "fairness".

And Amianthus brought up good questions. If you're so interested in making sure both sides get an equal chance to speak, does this mean you're going to support the
I wonder if you want to see
- pro-choice rallies forced to give equal time to anti-abortion activists?
- spouse abusers and pedophiles given equal time in the name of fairness?
- teaching of creation in science classes as an alternative to evolution?

That would be fair, according to what you have said.

I doubt it, but please, speak up for yourself and let the rest of us know just how far you expect this "fairness" to be carried out.[/color]

The silence speaks volumes.  All hidden under the apparent "moot point" of some amendment that was applied by a dastardly GOP Senator