Here Comes The Fairness Doctrine- Bush Will Veto
Bush: ‘Fairness Doctrine’ unfair
In Nashville today, during a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, President Bush said there’s nothing fair about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.
The FCC got rid of it about 20 years ago. Now, some Democrats in Congress - long the target of popular conservative radio talk-show hosts - think it’s time to bring it back.
Perish the thought, Bush told the religious broadcasters in the following passage that ends with a veto promise.
“This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways - America’s airways - stay open to those who preach the ‘Good News.’ The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.”
” I mention this because there’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.”
“We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance … The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions.”
“If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what’s called a ‘discharge petition,’ that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.”
“I do want to thank (Indiana Rep.) Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden (of Oregon), for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But I’ll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I’m going to veto it.”
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee! I thought the Democrat party was all about Freedom Of Speech? If it isnt in favor of the left, "It must be silenced"! The left have the MSM, Print Press, School Teachers, etc.. And all we have is Talk Radio? Just Leave My Rush Alone!!
In Nashville today, during a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, President Bush said there’s nothing fair about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies.
The FCC got rid of it about 20 years ago. Now, some Democrats in Congress - long the target of popular conservative radio talk-show hosts - think it’s time to bring it back.
Perish the thought, Bush told the religious broadcasters in the following passage that ends with a veto promise.
“This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways - America’s airways - stay open to those who preach the ‘Good News.’ The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.”
” I mention this because there’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.”
“We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance … The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions.”
“If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what’s called a ‘discharge petition,’ that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.”
“I do want to thank (Indiana Rep.) Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden (of Oregon), for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But I’ll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I’m going to veto it.”
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee! I thought the Democrat party was all about Freedom Of Speech? If it isnt in favor of the left, "It must be silenced"! The left have the MSM, Print Press, School Teachers, etc.. And all we have is Talk Radio? Just Leave My Rush Alone!!
Labels: Fairness Doctrine
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 7:38 AM
13 Comments:
The Dems are for Freedom of Speech ONLY if it is what they are speaking.
Anything we say is considered hate speech by the loony left.
This is just one more of a myriad of reason why we cannot let a Dem in the White House because everytime this , "Doctrine, " raises it ugly head a GOP President will VETO it. A Dem will sign it!
Ken,
I know this is utter nonsense!
It's time for some Public Outcry!!
The libs no longer have anything in common with "Freedom of Speech" except for when they use it to get away with the BS they spout, Marie! Excellent post and lots of Kudos to President Bush for vetoing it! :)
It's all about the marketplace.
Conservative talk radio sells, it has enough interested listeners to keep it thriving because people want to hear what it has to say.
Liberal talk radio doesn't sell because it doesn't have enough interested listeners.
In this case, the authors of the "Fairness" Doctrine seek to use the government to interfere with the marketplace because the lefties in Congress don't like the results of what amounts to the preferences of the American public.
"Back in the USSR..."
The Dhiimirats dont want free speech unless its theirs!..blech!
“This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways - America’s airways - stay open to those who preach the ‘Good News.’ The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away.”
This paragraph makes me nauseous. How does this man get away with saying this stuff?? LOL...if there is a president who has been more FOR destroying our Constitution and taking freedoms away, it's the Bush Crime Family. Amazing...and the lemmings keep walking toward the edge of the cliff...
Now I know why the right loves Rush so much: he starts off every other sentence with, "Let me tell you folks what this really means..."
Why is that? He must think you are all really stupid and uneducated that you can't decipher current events for yourself?
That sounds pretty condescending to me. And to think a drug addict would tell me, "Let me tell you what this means..."
LOL...no thanks.
Whaaah, Whaaah, Whaaah. The left always has something to cry about. I can remember the fairness doctrine days on PBS when a program was run and then afterwards someone who disgrees with the misinformation the program was trying to disseminate would state their objections at 4 in the morning long after the show was over and everyone was alseep. That was on PBS of all places where fairness to all sides has never existed because it is a leftist government indoctrination monopoly like government schools and government funded global baloney research.
At least Rush is funny unlike the tight asses that used to be on the failed Air America channel. Talk about drug addicted, methinks al Franken must of had too many hits of xtasy or LSD with his incoherrent ramblings. Rush, Hannity, G-man, Laura Ingram, etc... they are the equal time.
The last adminstration I know that has tried to shred the Constitution is after another bite at the apple. The Clintons, meet the Clintons they're a modern despot tyranny. (to the tune of The Flintstones)
Not sure if anyone on Air America has been caught falsifying prescriptions for Oxycontin...but in this day and age, for the right, accusations are as good as truth.
I don't remember the Clintons getting rid of habeas corpus, advocating and practicing in torture and operating warrantless wiretaps. I could be wrong.
As long as the government stays out of the decision-making process of who should be on the air waves we would be better off. It's obvious that talk radio in general is bombarded by hate-filled right wing morons who do nothing but preach more fear, more hate, more judgment and more insults. I don't think it is as popular these days as it was immediately after 9/11.
But then again, Hannity and Limbaugh do provide the average right-winger with talking points, which is understandable since they are unable to manufacture any on their own.
McAmnesty will sign it.
no doubt. especially if his dem "friends" ask him to in the spirit of bipartiship
anything to tick off the base some more.
but your right, a republican WOULD veto it.
but McLame will SIGN it.
Boy did the message get lost in this post!
The Point IS, NOBODY want's big Goverment Control Over OUR Airwaves!!
It doesnt matter who was taking what and when, it matters if our airwaves are under Federal Control!
WE DONT WANT IT!!
McAmnesty will sign it.
Come again, Bill?
It's obvious that talk radio in general is bombarded by hate-filled right wing morons who do nothing but preach more fear, more hate, more judgment and more insults.
federalist, it really becomes hard to take you seriously when you make such broad-brushed generalities and lefty moonbat talking points.
Listen to Randi Rhodes, then get back to me on hate radio.
And how have your rights been stripped away, federalist? FISA, Patriot Act, wiretapping, 3 instances in which waterboarding was used (and please make the dinstiction, when defining torture, that there's a world of difference between sleep deprivation to save lives from the next terrorist attack and drilling out someone's eyeballs for terrorism's sake)...how are these eroding your sense of freedom and unprecedented abuse of power and violations of the Constitution?
Food for thought:
The wiretaps shouldn't bug us
I CAN CERTAINLY understand the uproar over President Bush's flagrant abuses of civil liberties. This is America. What right does that fascist in the White House have to imprison Michael Moore, wiretap Nancy Pelosi and blackmail Howard Dean?
Wait. You mean he hasn't done those things? All he's done is intercept communications between terrorists abroad and their contacts in the U.S. without a court order? Talk about defining impeachable offenses downward.
If you want to see real abuses of civil liberties, read Geoffrey R. Stone's 2004 book "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism." It tells how John Adams jailed a congressman for criticizing his "continual grasp for power." How Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had the army arrest up to 38,000 civilians suspected of undermining the Union cause. How Woodrow Wilson imprisoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs for opposing U.S. entry into World War I. And how Franklin D. Roosevelt consigned 120,000 Japanese Americans to detention camps.
You can also read about how presidents from FDR to Richard Nixon used the FBI to spy on, and occasionally blackmail and harass, their political opponents. The Senate's Church Committee in 1976 blew the whistle on decades of misconduct, including FBI investigations of such nefarious characters as Eleanor Roosevelt, William O. Douglas, Barry Goldwater and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
All you have to do is recite this litany of excess to realize the absurdity of the cries of impeachment coming from the loonier precincts of the left. Muttering about "slippery slopes" isn't enough to convince most people that fascism is descending. If the president's critics want that part of the nation that doesn't read the Nation to believe that he's a threat to our freedom, they'd better do more than turn up the level of vituperation. They'd better find some real victims — the Eugene Debses and Martin Luther Kings of the war on terror.
Civil libertarians thought they were in luck when a college student in Massachusetts claimed that two FBI agents had shown up to interview him after he had requested a copy of Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book. Ted Kennedy cited this incident to warn of the Patriot Act's "chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom." Relax, Senator. Free speech is safe. The student lied.
The anti-Bush brigade hasn't had any luck in turning up actual instances of abuse, despite no end of effort. The ACLU compiled a list of supposed victims of the Patriot Act. After examining each case, however, Sen. Dianne Feinstein — no friend of the administration — said "it does not appear that these charges rose to the level of 'abuse.' "
Which isn't to say there haven't been some mistakes in the war on terror. Khaled Masri, a naturalized German citizen born in Lebanon, was snatched by U.S. agents in Macedonia and interrogated about his suspected terrorist links. When no such connection was uncovered, he was released five months later, complaining of mistreatment. Or there's Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim convert who was arrested and held for a couple of weeks because his fingerprints seemed to match those found at the Madrid bombing.
Doubtless other innocent people have been detained or had their communications intercepted. No system is perfect. But there isn't a scintilla of evidence that these were anything but well-intentioned mistakes committed by conscientious public servants intent on stopping the next terrorist atrocity.
And although the government has occasionally blundered, it has also used its enhanced post-9/11 powers to keep us safe. The National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps, which have generated so much controversy, helped catch, among others, a naturalized American citizen named Iyman Faris who pleaded guilty to being part of an Al Qaeda plot to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge.
No wonder polls show that most people continue to support Bush's handling of the war on terrorism. As long as federal surveillance remains targeted on the country's enemies, not on the president's, the public will continue to yawn at hyperbolic criticisms of the commander in chief.
Oops wrong post
Post a Comment
<< Home