Trajan Octavian Titus

No it can't the entire point of the fairness doctrine is to make it so cost prohibitive for media outlets to broadcast right wing voices that they are take them off the air. For example; clear channel 970 which broadcasts conservative talk where I live broadcasts 3 hours of Glenn Beck, 3 Hours of Rush Limbaugh, and 3 hours of Sean Hannity, now in order for clear channel to abide by the fairness doctrine they would be required to give 9 hours of equal time for free to the left, now when they are given the option of giving 9 hours of free airtime a day everyday Monday through Friday or taking Rush, Beck, and Limbaugh off the air which one do you think they are going to choose? That is why they want the fairness doctrine IE because they can't compete fairly in the market place of ideas so they seek to usurp the 1st amendment and silence their opposition.

Furthermore; who is going to determine who gets equal time? Let's say that somebody says Nazism is an evil ideology, will the broadcaster be forced to give free equal time to the Nazi party? What if someone says that child molestation is wrong, are they then obligated to give NAMBLA free equal time? The fairness doctrine is at best ludicrous and at its worst fascists.

As shown by the quotes of the FF's it most clearly does.

There are two seperate parts of the 2nd amendment it was also was included because the Founding Fathers clearly though it was the right of the average citizen to arm themselves which given the nature of the America's at that time is quite clear IE many people hunted for food and had to defend themselves from the indiginous peoples.

Not if people are using the 1st amendment to subvert the war effort as Lincoln said why should he be allowed to shoot the deserter but not be able to arrest those who convinced him to desert. This issue goes much further if you want to get into the realm of jurisprudence:

The Bad Tendency test - The freedom of speech does not protect disturbances to the public peace, attempts to subvert the government, inciting crime, or corruption of morals. The danger is none the less real and substantial because the effect of a given utterance cannot be seen. Just as with the offense of conspiracy, or other preparatory steps, the government need not wait until the spark has kindled the flame. It can act toward any threat to public order, even those that do so only remotely.

The Clear and Present Danger test - The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It does not protect a man from uttering words that have the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words in such circumstances are such as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about evils the government has a right to prevent. The First Amendment exists to protect the public good as well as individual expression.

The Clear and Probable Danger test - In each case, we must ask whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger. Contexts too numerable to ponder exist and events are often too remote to foresee. Cases must be decided on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, considering that the government's reasons for regulation are compelling.

The Brandenburg test - Merely teaching or advocating unpopular ideas must be distinguished from teaching or advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of acting on those beliefs. The right to speak and organize cannot be abridged no matter if the group's message and purpose are repugnant to American values (such as KKK speech). In order for government to intervene, the speaker must subjectively intend incitement (imminent evil), use words which are likely to produce action (imminent action), and openly encourage or urge incitement (suggesting, for example, it's a duty to commit a crime).

Read the above, they are not legally protected to do that freedom of speech is not absolute and never has been.

Why? If they have a warrant then they have met the burden of probable cause thus sneek and peak is not a violation of the 4th amendment.

You claimed the following:

It had nothing to do with that it only had to deal with records of an international character, IE records of financial transactions conducted by terrorist front charities and the like.

Jray

But it does not force them to remove the conservitive hosts, so it isnt preventing free speach. I do not like the fairness doctrine but your making it out to be fascist and saying kucinich will lead ameica to facism when that is the opposite of the truth.


So but why was the "in defense of themselves" part ommitted?

So that makes it irrelvent today not many americans hunt for food and most of the native americans were killed so if that was the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment (it wasnt) then we dont need guns today. Anyway Kucinich supports a handgun ban , which still allows you to own rifels needed for hunting.

{quote]Not if people are using the 1st amendment to subvert the war effort as Lincoln said why should he be allowed to shoot the deserter but not be able to arrest those who convinced him to desert. This issue goes much further if you want to get into the realm of jurisprudence:

The Bad Tendency test - The freedom of speech does not protect disturbances to the public peace, attempts to subvert the government, inciting crime, or corruption of morals. The danger is none the less real and substantial because the effect of a given utterance cannot be seen. Just as with the offense of conspiracy, or other preparatory steps, the government need not wait until the spark has kindled the flame. It can act toward any threat to public order, even those that do so only remotely.

The Clear and Present Danger test - The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It does not protect a man from uttering words that have the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words in such circumstances are such as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about evils the government has a right to prevent. The First Amendment exists to protect the public good as well as individual expression.

The Clear and Probable Danger test - In each case, we must ask whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger. Contexts too numerable to ponder exist and events are often too remote to foresee. Cases must be decided on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, considering that the government's reasons for regulation are compelling.

The Brandenburg test - Merely teaching or advocating unpopular ideas must be distinguished from teaching or advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of acting on those beliefs. The right to speak and organize cannot be abridged no matter if the group's message and purpose are repugnant to American values (such as KKK speech). In order for government to intervene, the speaker must subjectively intend incitement (imminent evil), use words which are likely to produce action (imminent action), and openly encourage or urge incitement (suggesting, for example, it's a duty to commit a crime).

Read the above, they are not legally protected to do that freedom of speech is not absolute and never has been.[/quote]

Which maks no sense do to the revolutionary begining of america, if jefferson, paine and adams were jailed for dissent then america wouldnt have revolted.