Some would like it to be returned. Its a doctrine saying there must always be an opposing viewpoint at all times (like Franken must always be present on Limbaugh's show and visa versa)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070115/pl_usnw/aim__congressional_liberals_bare_plan_to_muzzle_conservative_speech
2007-01-16 10:15:10 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The 'Fairness Doctrine' is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech, as well as an unconstitutional appropriation of private resources. It is also responsible for inculcating two very harmful ideas which still cripple our society's ability to engage in constructive dialogue; first, that there are always two sides to every question, no less and no more, and secondly that all opinions are equally valid merely because they are equally allowed to be spoken.
The net effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to stifle *ALL* debate, which was in fact the purpose. That is also the purpose behind the proposal to reinstate it.
2007-01-16 10:23:33 · answer #1 · answered by dukefenton 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The fairness doctrine I believe should only apply to candidates running for office. If the Republican is given fifteen minutes of airtime, the Democrat should also recieve fifteen minutes of airtime. In the case of a individual citizen's radio program, either Franken or Limbaugh, I do not believe an opposing viewpoint is necessary on the same program or even the same radio channel. There are plenty of choices for radio channels in pretty much every market, so you are not forced to listen to any one person's show. Also, with the increased popularity of satellite radio, such a doctrine is unneccassary. Simply put, if you don't like Limbaugh or Franken, you don't have to listen to them. Let the free market decide which voices they want to hear.
2007-01-16 10:21:31 · answer #2 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well no, it doesnt QUITE mean that. It just says media outlets which air political content reflecting one particular side or the other must allow equal time for presentation of an euqal but opposing viewpoint, with the goal of ensuring parity, fairness and a bi-partisan willingness to agree with the idea that the more informed the voting public is, the more intelligent a choice he or she can make on election day.
Why does the idea of free debate scare so many people?
2007-01-16 10:20:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Good question Alex, but once again you're wrong.
The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with who is on what show.
The elimination of the fairness doctrine is proof positive that there is no "liberal" media.
The fairness doctrine was eliminated by that great Liberal Ronald Reagan. He know perfectlt well that if the media didn't have to carry liberal oinion they wouldn't. Thus Republicans got to control the media.
In the over 20 years since this happened, I have never heard a single Republican wnting to get the fairness doctrine back. Lots of Democrats have, which should tell you something.
If there was a free and full exchange of ideas in this country, Republicans wouldn't have a chance. And Reagan knew it.
2007-01-16 10:27:24 · answer #4 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I don't think it's a violation of Free Speech, but I don't agree with it.
People are still allowed to say whatever they want, however, they must give the other side a chance to say whatever they want, so it doesn't violate free speech.
However, I don't think it's Congress's job to police FNC and CNN to make sure every side gets a fair say.
2007-01-16 10:22:19 · answer #5 · answered by John S 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not so much a violation of free speech as it is an approval of political correctness.
2007-01-17 08:34:48 · answer #6 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Free speech doesn't have a whole lot to do with what is broadcast under license from the FCC. Seems like they can make any rules they want.
2007-01-16 10:21:22 · answer #7 · answered by John H 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
That's the only way Democrats can win.
They must take the freedom away from the opposition.
2007-01-16 10:20:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
That thing is just to please everyone. What they do is have a show with two republicans, where one pretends to be a democrat. Like crossfire. And if the show is solo like Lou Dobbs, he has to pretend he's unbiased, but he's a republican. It's just crap to please the nimrods.
2007-01-16 10:20:06 · answer #9 · answered by Manuscript Replica 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
no, not if they are still able to argue their point, although they may no longer be able to brainwash as many people.
2007-01-16 10:18:32 · answer #10 · answered by Raymond 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋