A Republican senator is co-sponsoring a bill aimed at preventing Fairness Doctrine

So because it is secularly legal, it's right?

This is all your view and you're entitled to it but do I have to be stupid?. Remember, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Don't believe freedom of speech has absolutely no parameters.

 

I agree if the movie is a documentary but "fiction" is a disclaimer or warning.

I know you all feel it is dumb but you belong to the party who called our president a Muslim and Communist that palled around with terrorist. This is how your party operates and it their best political tactic since the party believes in doing nothing about the issues. So instead of having a platform, you spend all your time tearing down your opponents.

Somehow I would feel anyone with a Christian ethic would desire truth in all information but I guess we accept lying when it's from the media or advances your cause. I guess there is a difference between a liar and murderer. I guess bearing false witness was removed from the commandments. Funny how we choose when to be a Christian and when to be a constitutionalist.

 

Triplicate post...

 

Triplicate post...

 

IF... and its a BIG "if" because I doubt you can point to a single statement of Limbaugh's that a court would find defamatory... That's still a FAR cry from inciting illegal or dangerous action or "yell(ing) fire in a crowded theater."

As my last post indicates, there are morons who get their world view from Spike Lee too... I don't hear you or anyone else trying to censor his words... And he and the rest of Hollywood are more deliberately defamatory than ANYONE on AM RADIO.

 

So...an economist espousing views you don't agree with is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a theater, and should be restricted by government?

Face it: your idea is a terrible one, and no explanation is going to make it better.

Why don't you just admit that the First Amendment is pretty darn good, and doesn't need your "adjustments?"

 

Oh, come on, of the (few) Democrats I know, more get their entire news from John Stewart on the Daily Show, than watch CNN, much less any news source that might have the occasional different perspective like Fox. And Stewart doesn't put a "fiction disclaimer" on his lies couched in comedy. And how many of the public-educated, half-illiterate electorate think JFK or W were documentaries? I don't think Oliver Stoned ever put a "fiction disclaimer" anywhere in his credits.

Give it a rest LeBuick. Your side of the aisle has LOTS more propaganda entertainment than the Republicans. I don't watch John Stewart because I think he's full of hot air (and other stuff). If you think the same about Rush, don't listen.

On my truck, I have put every kind of bumper sticker we can find that agrees with our politics. Some people on the road might not agree with them...Some might find a perspective they never considered and change their minds. And imagine, the guy stuck behind me in traffic CAN'T EVEN CHANGE THE CHANNEL! Should I be required to put equal-sized and opposite-viewed bumper stickers on half of my tailgate?

Freedom of Speech, no matter how unappealing some might find that speech, is an absolute right, essential to every other freedom we enjoy in this country. Begin censoring it, and it won't be long before other freedoms disappear too, because no voices are left to defend them against an era of bad-government... much like we currently have.

[EDIT] - After re-reading my post, I realized I had left out the strongest argument there is against the "Fairness Doctrine": OBAMA WON!!!! If Rush was SO dangerously persuasive, how is it your idol won the election?!?!?! Or do you think NNE should have voted against the Abortionist-In-Chief? Which is what my vote amounted to.

 

Which is why we need to make sure he is telling them truth and not intentionally leading them with false information. Now don't get me wrong, because truth has various view points depending on may variables. Because a conservative economist must speak the truth doesn't mean he won't have a conservative view point. It simply means and can't insert intentional false information to add severity or strength to their argument.

So John Stewart will still be John and Rush will still be Rush but they will be held accountable to providing true facts and not intentionally false, slanderous information.

 

I really mean this:

Thank God LeBuick can't touch the First Amendment.

This would cease to be America.


I find it sad that someone is unable to recognize such a foundational tenet of our country's greatness.

 

But the truth is, that's not AT ALL what the fairness doctrine would do. Its all about equal time which means that Rush can say whatever he wants, as long as there is a equal-length show on after his which says exactly the opposite. It has nothing to do with who's telling the truth... it just means Democrats can get on the air and lie through their teeth for damage control of whatever Rush just brought to light.

The STATION OWNERS, not the commentators, would be fined (or worse, their FCC licenses revoked) for not ensuring that equal time exists. But look at "Air America"... Liberal Radio is not economically viable because no one (at least of the radio-listening audience) wants to hear their B.S. So THEN, you're cutting into the broadcasters' profits, because advertisers won't buy time (or pay as much for time) on crappy liberal shows. And when they can't make their budgets, and they turn the station off for good, there's NO conservative viewpoints AT ALL.

Then, Obama and the Senate, "in an effort to stimulate the economy" buy all the defunct stations, broadcasting commercial-free state media. And I'm SURE they'll employ the "Fairness Doctrine" then, aren't you? Look at NPR... About as balanced as Norman Bates.

Again, LeBuick, turn it off. Rush didn't deter the successful election of the least experienced U.S. President since George Washington... If you insist on this brand of "fairness", go live in Cuba.

 

More common sense for LeBuick to ponder:

From Camille Paglia at salon.com: SOURCE

Well said.

 

We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. (Demand # 27 of the National Socialist German Workers' (NAZI) Party.)

 

That's not at all what I said, I said I would like it to be illegal for anyone to knowing tell an out right lie over the airwaves. I believe as Christians we should want everyone to know the truth and we'd be a much better Nation if we were equipped with solid facts instead of the lies we hear today.

I have never advocated equal time for each lie, I advocate truth and truth alone.

Not sure why Christians would oppose me since both lying and bearing false witness are sin's???

 

Let me get this straight. You're opposed to a truthful media?

 

No. Just opposed to the entrenched political party in power being the abriture of what is and is not "truth",

 

So you are opposed to a truthful media? Is that what this means?

 

Laws against slander and libel are already on the books.

 

No. Just opposed to the entrenched political party in power being the abriture of what is and is not "truth".

 

LeBuick and Just C, why argue so vociferously for a main tenet of the NAZI party? Is it your wish to dictate ideological "truth?"