Does Obama believe in free speech?

[_bcspace]

Ok, now I'm calling b***s***, BC. Reason being is that the Fairness Doctrine was first erroded under President Reagan's watch by then FCC Chair Mark Fowler. In 1987 Congress tried to preempt the FCC's decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine in law only to have it vetoed by Reagan. In 1991 Congress tried again only to have the whole thing shelved because President Bush threatened another veto. In fact, the last three Senators that ahve gone on record as supporting bring back the Fairness Doctrine are Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and John Kerry (D-MA). The GOP has constantly and consitantly opposed reinstating the Fairness Doctrine at every point since the FCC first moved to abolish it in 1985.

That's a good thing because the only reason why the left is trying to preserve it is because there has been a media battleground upon which they continue to struggle to get any listenership despite millions of dollars poured into it. In other words, they still can't convince anyone that their system is good despite their most careful lies and promises.

So take that "lefties don't support free speech" horse s*** and cram it directly up your ass.

The word going around the board is that you've got a thing for ewes.

[_Angus McAwesome]

That's a good thing because the only reason why the left is trying to preserve it is because there has been a media battleground upon which they continue to struggle to get any listenership despite millions of dollars poured into it. In other words, they still can't convince anyone that their system is good despite their most careful lies and promises.

So first you whine about Obama and the DNC supposedly being anti-free speech and then when it's shown to you that the exact opposite is the case you break out the red herrings and try to move the goal posts. Ok, you're a damned idiot, case closed.

[_richardMdBorn]

Angus,

The question is whether or not Obama believes in free speech.

Yes he does.

What do you think about this issue. If you think he does, please present evidence for this.

Please present evidence that MCCain believes in free speech.
I suspect most of it will be the same.

By they way, right-wingers shout me down all the time and try to prevent me from speaking.

Stop being ridiculous.

Please respond to the evidence I cited.

[_richardMdBorn]

Would he be willing to impose the Fairness Doctrine on the mainstream media? I doubt it. I've never known a political lefty in favor of free speech.

Ok, now I'm calling b***s***, BC. Reason being is that the Fairness Doctrine was first erroded under President Reagan's watch by then FCC Chair Mark Fowler. In 1987 Congress tried to preempt the FCC's decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine in law only to have it vetoed by Reagan. In 1991 Congress tried again only to have the whole thing shelved because President Bush threatened another veto. In fact, the last three Senators that ahve gone on record as supporting bring back the Fairness Doctrine are Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and John Kerry (D-MA). The GOP has constantly and consitantly opposed reinstating the Fairness Doctrine at every point since the FCC first moved to abolish it in 1985.

So take that "lefties don't support free speech" horse s*** and cram it directly up your ass.

Your example, the fairness doctrine, shows the precise opposite of your conclusion. Reinstituting the fairness doctrine is an attempt by the left to censor talk radio. It's an example of trying to stifle free speech.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Rich, learn to read. I wasn't the one that brought up the Fairness Doctrine as an example of free speech in the first place or that said democrats would be opposed to applying it. That was your boy BC. Also, the Fairness Doctrine never was designed to stifle free speech at all, in fact it was intended to make sure that opposing views were given the same amount of airtime. But what the hell, why let facts get in the way of things, amirite?

[_richardMdBorn]

Rich, learn to read. I wasn't the one that brought up the Fairness Doctrine as an example of free speech in the first place or that said democrats would be opposed to applying it. That was your boy BC. Also, the Fairness Doctrine never was designed to stifle free speech at all, in fact it was intended to make sure that opposing views were given the same amount of airtime. But what the hell, why let facts get in the way of things, amirite?

I can read. I was responding to your comment knowing full well that BC mentioned it first. by the way, BC and I disagree on many things so he's hardly my boy.. And the Fairness Doctrine was used to suppress speech. I suggest that you read a bit more.

Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard. By requiring, under threat of arbitrary legal penalty, that broadcasters "fairly" represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.

Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. ("FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine," Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.) Even liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo has argued that, "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." (Mario Cuomo, "The Unfairness Doctrine," The New York Times, September 20, 1993, p. A19.)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

You had better beware of far right wingers like Cuomo!

[_Angus McAwesome]

FFS... The "Heritage Foundation"? So your idea of a rebuttle is to quote a conservative lobby group. Even worse, that article's entire premise is mired in one great big slippery slope fallacy. OH NO! If everyone has a say then the station won't air anyone's opinions at! Then all we'll have to see is reruns of Sienfeld and Friends!

My favorite part of that article:

Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.

Nevermind "reinstituted" not being an actual word (the correct term would be reinstated), the problem with their conclusion is it assumes that every location in the US has access to enough media to be able to easily find "opposing views". I live in Huntsville, AL. Here we've got one new/talk station that can be reliably picked up and it's a purely conservative station (WVNN). Yes, there is NPR, but NPR plays less talk and news then it does fruity music and opinion pieces about whatever fru-fru book is popular at the moment. The Local TV stations are ALL conservatively biased, so the chances of getting an opposing view are slim to none.



"Heritage Foundation"... More like "Far Right Old White Guys Foundation". Try again when you can toss out something from a neutral source.

[_richardMdBorn]

FFS... The "Heritage Foundation"? So your idea of a rebuttle is to quote a conservative lobby group. Even worse, that article's entire premise is mired in one great big slippery slope fallacy. OH NO! If everyone has a say then the station won't air anyone's opinions at! Then all we'll have to see is reruns of Sienfeld and Friends!

My favorite part of that article:

Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.

Nevermind "reinstituted" not being an actual word (the correct term would be reinstated), the problem with their conclusion is it assumes that every location in the US has access to enough media to be able to easily find "opposing views". I live in Huntsville, AL. Here we've got one new/talk station that can be reliably picked up and it's a purely conservative station (WVNN). Yes, there is NPR, but NPR plays less talk and news then it does fruity music and opinion pieces about whatever fru-fru book is popular at the moment. The Local TV stations are ALL conservatively biased, so the chances of getting an opposing view are slim to none.



"Heritage Foundation"... More like "Far Right Old White Guys Foundation". Try again when you can toss out something from a neutral source.

I note that you didn't respond to the quote from Cuomo.

[_richardMdBorn]

No one with the exception of KG has responded to the points made in my first two posts. the question is whether Obama believe in free speech. Based on his campaign the answer is no and it will only get worse if he becomes president.

[_Angus McAwesome]

I note that you didn't respond to the quote from Cuomo.

Why should I when you've consistently failed to actually address my arguments head on and have yet to show that the Obama campaign really is against free-speech or to Tarski asking you to show how the McCain campaign is actually any different.

But just to humor you, I'll state that Mario Coumo is a damned idiot. As I've said time and time again, I'm not a democrat and I realize that the much like the GOP, the DNC has more than their far share of morons as well. Coumo said, "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." The problem with this is that it assumes that the "free press" with regulate itself in order to foster debate, when anyone who watches our TV News outlets and our radio news outlets can see this is not the case at all, and as I already pointed out, in quite a few parts of this nation you can't simply change the station to hear an alternative view because their isn't a station with an alternative view to be found.