Dem Thuggery Directed Toward Talk Radio

Reverend_Hellh0und · 10-09-07, 12:15 PM

Reference:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -Amendment I Bill of Rights, US Constitution

Whether you are a left or right winger how can this sort of nonsense as quoted below sit well with you. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution protects Limbaughs speech as it does frankin's O'donnell's etc, etc.....

How does a government official telling an American what he can and can not say about politics sit with you?

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.....

Quote:

Rick Moran
They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, we'd see enemies lists, dossiers, and naked abuse of political and regulatory power in order to silence criticism and secure an unfair electoral advantage. And they were right!
(Glenn Reynolds)

Mr. Reynold's pithy obvservation is best illustrated by this bit of thuggery from one of the most powerful Chairmen in the House who heads up one of the most powerful Committees in Congress:

Others on the Democrat side are pushing ahead with other plans. Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."
This is political hardball being played at the street level. The Democrat controlled Congress is putting conservative talk radio hosts on notice that unless they mute their criticism, they may very well find themselves out of a job sometime soon.

The Fairness Doctrine theoretically doesn't need Congressional authorization to be implemented. It can come into being at the stroke of a pen by the President. Legislation passed earlier in the year, however, prevents the FCC from spending any funds to implement it so just how it could be enforced is a puzzle.

But just the threat of reviving the Fairness Doctrine is chilling. Not that Limbaugh, Hannity, or any other conservative talk radio host worth their salt will pull in their horns because of it. But their bosses who run the networks they appear on may take a different view. Corporations hate having the government looking over their shoulder and while the hosts themselves may thumb their noses at Waxman and his gangster staff, those who ultimately control their access to the airwaves might, at some point down the line, try and put their foot down.

Is this just Waxman blowing smoke? Indeed it may very well be. But it is effective smoke blowing in that it may accomplish what they want anyway without going to the extremes of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Hopefully they try to go through with it. The unconstitutional rantings of Waxman can find him in hot water.

How so?

Google "Tortious inteference".....

ok don't google, This is pretty accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

I hope the sue thier a$$es!

Doremus Jessup · 10-09-07, 03:36 PM

Do you have a link to the article?

Kandahar · 10-09-07, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Is this just Waxman blowing smoke? Indeed it may very well be. But it is effective smoke blowing in that it may accomplish what they want anyway without going to the extremes of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Ya, the Senate has much more important things it should be doing, like condemning newspaper advertisements. I trust you were equally vocal in your opposition to that?

With that said, the Fairness Doctrine is ****ing stupid, and it has no chance of ever being revived.

Simon W. Moon · 10-09-07, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
I hope the sue thier a$$es!

Moderator's Warning:

Reverend_Hellh0und, please bring your thread into compliance with these guidelines by providing a link.
Please check out all of the guidelines for this forum.

Per Please read - *Breaking News* Rules and Guidelines (Please read - *Breaking News* Rules and Guidelines)

Here are the rules and some guidelines to help you properly use this forum:
1. All threads started in the *Breaking News* (*BN*) forum must adhere to the Rules and Guidelines as stipulated below. Be advised that Infraction Points may be awarded for failure to adhere to these Rules and Guidelines.

3. Each *BN* Opening Post (OP) must have a citation link to a news story.

4. The title of every *BN* thread must be identical to the title of the cited news story headline. This is important as it helps to avoid multiple topics about an issue while starting discussions out on a more neutral basis.

Thank you,

Simon

Reverend_Hellh0und · 10-10-07, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doremus Jessup

Do you have a link to the article?

Sorry, forgot!

link

Simon W. Moon · 10-10-07, 10:16 AM

Moderator's Warning:

Moving this piece. For the following reasons it does not fit the BN forum criteria:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...uidelines.html (Please read - *Breaking News* Rules and Guidelines)

2. Independent commentary and OpEd pieces are not allowed in *BN*.

donc · 10-10-07, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Reference:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -Amendment I Bill of Rights, US Constitution

Whether you are a left or right winger how can this sort of nonsense as quoted below sit well with you. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution protects Limbaughs speech as it does frankin's O'donnell's etc, etc.....

How does a government official telling an American what he can and can not say about politics sit with you?

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.....

Hopefully they try to go through with it. The unconstitutional rantings of Waxman can find him in hot water.

How so?

Google "Tortious inteference".....

ok don't google, This is pretty accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

I hope the sue thier a$$es!

Unconstitutional??? sue thier a$$es!???

<license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment, which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.>

Your calling it unconstitutional when corporate media can control 50 media outlets in 1983,to something like three, four, not sure, but it is minuscule now. Give what your rooting for some thought, sometime in your life might not be in lockstep with Rush,then it will be too late, corporate media has locked you out, all you can do is get on the computer and start bitchiing, whoops Its been compromised also. Sorry Charlie ,just have plug your brain into Fox, let Rush, Hannity tell you what the days thoughts should be.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 10-10-07, 10:36 AM

One of these Deushe bags in the Senate wanted to censure Rush, my god, how do these people run the country if they don't even know who the can and can't censure, you can't censure a private citizen you dumb bastards!

Reverend_Hellh0und · 10-10-07, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donc

Unconstitutional??? sue thier a$$es!???

<license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment, which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.>

What happened to that fairness doctrine?

And the US Supreme court pooped on the constitution in 1969.

Political speech is protected. No matter how much you hate it.,

Also about the lawsuit? See "tortious inteference"

Quote:

Your calling it unconstitutional when corporate media can control 50 media outlets in 1983,to something like three, four, not sure, but it is minuscule now. Give what your rooting for some thought, sometime in your life might not be in lockstep with Rush,then it will be too late, corporate media has locked you out, all you can do is get on the computer and start bitchiing, whoops Its been compromised also. Sorry Charlie ,just have plug your brain into Fox, let Rush, Hannity tell you what the days thoughts should be.

Ad hominen, such fun.....
I rarely watch any cable news. For I don't care about that aruba chick or that blond chick who offed herself.

danarhea · 10-10-07, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donc

Unconstitutional??? sue thier a$$es!???

<license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment, which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.>

Your calling it unconstitutional when corporate media can control 50 media outlets in 1983,to something like three, four, not sure, but it is minuscule now. Give what your rooting for some thought, sometime in your life might not be in lockstep with Rush,then it will be too late, corporate media has locked you out, all you can do is get on the computer and start bitchiing, whoops Its been compromised also. Sorry Charlie ,just have plug your brain into Fox, let Rush, Hannity tell you what the days thoughts should be.

Fair enough, but if you really want to be fair, you should be criticizing the man who pushed through the legislation that made it possible for just a few corporations to control almost all of our mass media. That man was Bill Clinton.