Quote:
Some of you, apparently, are too stupid to be free. Worse, your obtuse opinions are reinforced three hours daily by unsanctioned, fanatical talk-radio troglodytes.
This, I’m afraid, is a sin against fairness. Now, if only you had some more information. Because God knows, you’re being deprived of media choices now. So it’s time for re-education, or so sayeth Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. . . .
When asked this week if she supported revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Pelosi answered, reportedly without hesitation: “Yes.” In 2007, according to the conservative American Spectator magazine, a Pelosi adviser had said, “Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans, and we have had to find a way to limit it.”
Finding a way to “limit” free speech for partisan advantage is a tactic Richard Nixon would have admired (though he typically had the decency to do such things clandestinely) but not a tactic we expect from a lawmaker who claimed she was bringing a new day to Washington.
Unless, of course, by “new” she meant a new day for the Sedition Act.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_9711637


be vary afraid of Queen Nancy

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.obamatruth.org/

I think you mean "Supreme Komrade Nancy" or "General Secretary Nancy" or "Maniacal Communist Dictator Nancy"

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

Tank u 4 edumacating me. Me so stoopid 2 b free.

__________________
Signature:

You just figured this out? I've been preaching this for years.

Because according to Frau Pelousy, "If ya can't join 'em...BEAT 'em."

__________________
"It's the rich people's fault they earn more." - Makedde

Many people can happily insulate/be insulated from all other points of views- useful for Limbaugh and those that can profit from a beakdown in dialogue, but not society as such. Make no mistake that much of the opposition to such an initiative is about controling people (though that isn't to deny that much suppport for it is of the similar partisan vein).

Seems to me that what you are advocating is infact censorship in its most modern form- you're aloud to say whatever you like, but people actually hearing it? Unlikely. The same ends with different means as the cesorship of yesteryear, just of necessity more refined.

so you propose we go into a private company and tell them what to broadcast?

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.obamatruth.org/

It happens all the time. There's limited broadcast frequencies out there so Gov. has an interest in how they are handled. Howard Stern was told what he couldn't say all the time. FCC v. Pacifica and George Carlin's Seven Words.

not the same

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.obamatruth.org/

There's a big difference between censorship due to vulgarity, and censorship because it contradicts someone's opinion.

__________________
"It's the rich people's fault they earn more." - Makedde

I believe that the 'scarcity of bandwidth' rationale is the same regulatory justification given for obscenity as it is for fairness.

Conceptually, they are the same.