Free Speech? Not under a democratic congress?

Question

Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech. Like the communists in the former Soviet Union, America’s liberals seek to crush dissent by consolidating control over the media—especially talk radio, which has emerged as the dominant medium for conservative opinion.

Allies close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are promoting legislation, which if passed, will take off the air prominent conservative radio hosts such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—along with thousands of smaller conservative broadcasters. The bill, entitled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," is sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a leftist Democrat from New York. The legislation aims to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” of the 1940’s: “all views” are to be given equal time on radio.

See the story at
http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=346CF94D8F6C442FB25AC38AD486013C

People, its a free market. Why should congress legislate that a radio or TV show has to be fair and balanced? Shouldn't the market decide this? So does that mean that the religious shows that broadcast on TV have to give equal time to the KKK or the devil?

Answer 1

Liberal democrats are trying to shut up a lot more than just conservatives . They know they lost the last two presidential elections because the voters have more access to facts than we ever got from the bias liberal mainstream media for years - they are panicked to realize their dirty little seret agendas are getting light . Hillary - has been leading the the fight to shut down the flow of info on the Internet - and publically stated " We have too much free speech ". How did she get elected after making a dumb remark like that - in the U.S. - of all places ? Bias Liberals in mainstream media have gone unrestrained for years - until conservatives decided enough was enough - thus a FEW brave souls decided to buck the trend of the liberal backlash for going against the mainstream bias . Many lost jobs in the past - so the rest caved & went where the money was . Imus was a threat to Hillary's White House bid-so he had to go . Now - they want to clear her path before ALL the voters actually find out her REAL past history..so they target a miniscule few in conservative talk radio . It will never wash . The revolt over Imus-who most people didn't particular care for anyhow - will go to Washington and be heard from the rooftops . Democrats will be the big loosers here - because if Imus was a tiny speck of an indication - to public response - over the subject of free speech - the American people have not yet begun to fight .

Answer 2

I have not read the entire bill or every rider attached assuming there are some. I have read the principal points to the bill and they are concerned with media ownership.
So am I.
Ask yourself a question. Is it in your best interest for the majority of the news reporting services in the world to be owned by 4 or 5 people? Do you think it's possible for the views and opinions of those 4 or 5 people to carry more weight then perhaps they deserve if they own all the media. Is this a system you prefer and is it democratic in your opinion? If you think this is good for democracy and free speech then I am curious about your logic. The proposed bill would try to reduce this occurrence by basically preventing media monopolies from being so large. The majority of the world’s media is owned by 5 individuals or groups the last time I checked. The legislation does NOT mention conservative radio host nor does it outlaw conservative opinion. I think you may be misinformed.

Answer 3

you want to bypass lower back and examine your contstitution and study the historic previous of this large u . s . a .. in case you do, you'll discover that the structure is a set of regulations that prepare to the authorities purely, frequently the rules that congress will be surpassed. i'm distinctly certain that Yahoo solutions isn't reported everywhere contained in the structure. in actuality, is does no longer say something about buisnesses or inner most entities. Our forefathers were large and smart men, they knew what they were doing and made it deliberately this form. They not in any respect meant that persons might want to come out and be completely offensive and no one might want to *****. The target of this change develop into to furnish us the right to speak out hostile to our authorities officials and rules without being imprisoned or killed. the purely way that your constitutional rights will be infringed, is that if the authorities took action hostile to you for what you reported. yet as like many different parts of the contitution, it really is change is being misinturpreted with the help of mis-recommended human beings.

Answer 4

Seeing as this rule would force stations to give equal time to opposing views, and conservatives swear the media is overwhelmingly liberal, on balance this would bring in more conservative views than it would stop. So, the real problem the Limbaughs, savages (pun intended) and Hannitys have is that they would get less market share and therefore less money, even though conservatives would be better served by this law. Follow the money, it will never lead you wrong.

Answer 5

You have to wonder, are pelosi and her cohorts in the progressive caucus really socialists or neo-communists

I have been doing some reading on the topic and this may be exactly where they are heading, neo-communism.

Interesting perspective.

but to answer you question, speech is only free to these people if you agree with them, which of course is why they want to tape the mouths of dissent.

next will be your ability to defend yourself from a tyrannical government. commie, socialist, neo-commie, they are all the same, they will rob from us to make themselves rich, and in control of our lives, our rights.

feinstein is a classic example, use her power to steal from us, then try to put a muzzle on what we say.

when they come knocking on your door you had better be ready, there will be no warrants, there will be no courts except those ruled by them............they are coming and this is guaranteed

the only hope is AMerica wakes up and repudiates the socialists in congress.

Answer 6

Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA)

The Media Ownership Reform Act seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market. The bill also reinstates the Fairness Doctrine to protect fairness and accuracy in journalism.

Answer 7

ANY news piece whose lead is, "Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech," is an absolutely laughable excuse for journalism.

There's a sucker born every minute, and you certainly qualify. Read more about the Media Ownership Reform Act here:

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml


Or not... This is America, so you're certainly allowed to wallow in your ignorance.

Answer 8

How is equal time censorship? It sounds more like they're trying to revive Air America. I don't know if that's really worth doing, since only Republicans seem stupid enough to listen to that indoctrinating dribble. Just out of curiosity, did you learn about this dangerous infringement against the press from talk radio?

Answer 9

I have mixed feelings on this- I don't want to smother or limit anyone's rights but most radio shows are owned by conservatives and/or have conservative sponcers where liberal hosts are fired and liberal people applying for a slot aren't hired.

no radio company has a monopoly but most regular, free radio is biased toward the right. balanced radio companies are typically private and liberal ones are also private due to there being no room for them on public,free radio

Answer 10

And the Republicans don't crush dissent by calling people who criticizes the administration un-rAmerican and un-Patriotic? Bush didnt sign into law the military commissions act that stops habeus corpus? Really?