How do you feel about the so-called Fairness Doctrine?

Question

Should the government regulate radio media and require station owners to carry programming they do not consider profitable?

Wouldn't it be like requiring a successful rock and roll formatted station to run opera half the time?

Retrotrancer: Check out this link about what the Supreme Court just did 2 days ago, had you heard?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288457,00.html

Answer 1

Radio stations should carry only what people want to listen to, based upon accurate polling data. Fairness is just another way of saying, "We want Rush Limbaugh to be less popular."

Answer 2

Our politicians are hypocritical. Both sides speak of the importance of free speech. That is until they don't agree with it. The dems are wrong for wanting to try to shut up the right wing talk shows. And the reps are wrong for telling everyone who disagrees with Bush that they are traitors and should shut up and leave the country.

I say, let the all speak. If I don't like what they have to say, I can always turn off the radio or walk away from a discussion I dislike. When we try to silence the opposition we sound like Nazis.

Answer 3

The First Amendment prohibits the government from controlling speech. But that didn't stop the government from passing campaign finance reform, which controlled speech.

If people think the Fairness Doctrine will never become law better read up on McCain/Feingold.

Answer 4

fairness?? accountability? look who's speaking!! If i did no longer understand to any extent further useful i might swear they became conservative. the ingredient liberals do is grasp fancy words. there is not any longer something hassle-free approximately silencing the competition. there is not any longer something hassle-free approximately pushing labels with a twist. that's what they're attempting to do. call it something valuable that folk prefer to hearken to, and sense sturdy approximately and you will escape with something. individuals love their liberties. this might kill u . s . of america in the present day. it is a step in the direction of totalitarianism, and dictatorship, comparable ingredient. I skinny the possibility in all it is that no-one can see what those maggots are relatively doing: they're making the individuals, who, via the way, are going to be paying for the time of the roof for his or her communist ideals, turn against one yet another. thank you to divide and triumph over!! Deja-vous! If we are bot careful we can fall for the toddler-kisser's plot. i'm no longer asserting all of them are for the duration of this. I actual have large appreciate for the relatively real sort that makes it for the time of the maze each and every of how up there. yet look, it is on us, human beings, we are all going to pay for it. unfastened speech would desire to be secure! it is a would desire to!

Answer 5

The government lacks the power to do so. There are already public broadcasting organizations for the above-stated purpose, so such regulation would be redundant as well as unconstitutional.

Answer 6

No. The "Fairness Doctrine" is completely unfair.

When did "Fairness" become a Constitutional right??? I must have been asleep when we went over that in government class, cause I totally don't remember ever hearing that life is fair and you have the right to a fair life.

Answer 7

yeah, it just shows how they thought the Chavez thing was brilliant.

Would the government not renew a license if they disagreed with their political view.

that is a slippery slope that our government should not explore.

I find it odd that the same people who support it, are the same people against the patriot act.

Answer 8

Freedom of the press does not allow for regulation of content no matter what the neo-communists want to call it.

Answer 9

no