Do you think that if our Founding Fathers had envisioned that one day information would be distributed via radio waves they would have written the "freedom of radio" into the 1st Amendment?
Consider that they wrote the only two methods of communication existing at that time in: speech and press.
Thoughts?
2007-06-22
08:48:34
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Time to Shrug, Atlas
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Would our Founding Fathers support the Fairness Doctrine, or would they have restricted the abiltiy of the government to interfere with broadcasts?
2007-06-22
08:55:30 ·
update #1
Heidi- Am I missing something? What makes airwaves federal property? Don't the soundwaves coming from our throats carry across those same medium?
2007-06-22
08:57:58 ·
update #2
Our Founding Fathers were quite clear about their distaste for big government.. What Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer want is to follow in Chavez's footsteps.. this Country was NOT found on socialist principles and I believe Our Founding Fathers would have amended the 1st Amendment to include radio..
2007-06-22 09:20:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by bereal1 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Since the Fairness Doctrine was the rule of broadcasting until 1987 I don't see any cause for alarm. News reporting was more accurate and believable back then.
The fairness doctrine only applies to biased reporting, not opinion pieces...and even then it does not prevent biased reporting, it only requires that time be made available for those challenging the accuracy to present their evidence to the contrary.
The founding fathers had their own problems with deceptive pamphleteers. The Hamilton-Burr duel was partly the result of biased public writing and I believe they would have favored an ability to confront a spreader of false News.
Congress made the airwaves property of the public in 1934 - who should they belong to? The highest bidder or the person with the most powerful transmitter? It is the obligation of the government to regulate the airwaves in the interest of the public - and they are falling down on the job.
2007-06-22 09:13:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by oohhbother 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
you are free to say what you want on the radio...but if you use federal airwaves, you are subject to regulation. Regulation is NOT censorship, and this law is coming at a time when there are alternatives, like satellite radio. I don;t believ that the gov't should provide free air waves to corporations. Sheesh, you'd think you people who claim to be 'conservative' would be all over getting out of the government sponsorship game...
EDIT: bandwidths are controlled such that police have frequencies that cannot be used by others, and the FCC controls the AM and the FM (FEDERAL agency) hence the regulated waves. HOWEVER, satellite radio is NOT controlled by the FCC, so the fairness doctrine would not strtech over into that realm. Similar to cable TV, although the cables are shared,the programming is regulated differently depending on whether or not itis a public station.
BTW, I wonder if they would have written 'money' into the first amendment, since the SCOTUS said that we could not restirct funding to candidates, as that is restircting speech...a side note, but related.
2007-06-22 08:54:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by hichefheidi 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I don't think our founding father's would not have supported the Fairness Doctrine. Radio stations are guided by the free market, and there should be no limit on that. If I wanted to listen to liberals I would but I don't, and I don't think I should be forced to do that on the radio. Since I don't want to read porn magazines, I don't buy them, but as outrageous as I think porn is, it is called free speech. If the Fairness Doctrine is so fair, then when can't conservatives have the right to speak up for the other side in porn magazines. Libs have the right to listen to whatever they want to. They don't have to listen to conservatives. Let them get their own programs.
2007-06-22 09:18:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believ whole-heartedly in Freedom of Speach, however, I beleive that the media, whether it be radio, tv, or the press all have an obligation to present all sides of the story truthfully and evenly, even if they [personally] are on one side or the other. I hate it when a story gets big air-time because it slants one way (usually to the left) , but if the same story were to slant the other way it's deemed unimportant. The same goes for the "race" situation - if a situation happens to a "minority" all the so-called "reverends" are out yelling racism; but if the same were to happen to the "majority" no one plays the race card... so who's the racist?
2007-06-22 09:04:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by pc long island 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
That is why there are amendments. That helps amend things as they change. I don't really believe that they would have added it at the time no. I do believe that responsible non propaganda reporting has long left this country and needs to be restored. Sorry but being one from the middle and viewing both sides on news networks and radio, Conservatives like Rush or FOX way out do the propaganda card than that of any liberal on the airways. I find the liberals to have opinion yes but not to brow beat you with it and act like anyone that doesn't agree is a moron and should not be listened to. Responsible reporting needs to be reinstilled in this country, it has gotten way out of hand. You can be free to speak opinion fine, but to brow beat is something else. I mean for god sakes 4 months ago FOX was already running anti-democrat adds, that is wrong.
2007-06-22 08:55:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by bs b 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
I'm not sure what you are getting at exactly. But I think the founding fathers would have wanted the radio stations to be able to broadcast without restrictions.
Of course they probably would have supported reasonable restrictions like they couldn't broadcast treasonous ideas, or things like that.
2007-06-22 08:51:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Nickoo 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Whenever you hear hippies say "Fair" a little flag should go up. It means,"they don't like the rules cause they are losing and want to change them and they will use the government (or a gun, threat of imprisonment, fines) to do it."
2007-06-22 09:07:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by John Galt 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think radio pretty much uses speech.
2007-06-22 08:52:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Brian 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
The Fairness Doctrine only wants BALANCED free speech.
it is in this nations interests and fits along with the spirit of the Constitution of this country....unlike Bush's illegal wire-tapping of American citizens.
2007-06-22 08:52:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋