censorship is censorship no matter what you choose to call it. and this censorship doctrine will be fought and defeated.
On Nov 12, 2:30 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > do some research on the subject it was dismissed before it ever made > it to the supreme court . > > On Nov 12, 2:13 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That would be for the Court to decide. > > > Not you. > > > On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > it hasn't been challenged because it is isn't unconstitutional ! > > > > On Nov 11, 6:01 pm, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > could that be because this censorship doctrine has never been > > > > challenged in court. it will be > > > > > On Nov 11, 8:32 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > fish boy it has never been considered unconstitutional and that is the > > > > > fact of the mater > > > > > > On Nov 11, 8:10 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then > > > > > > its > > > > > > constitutionality should be reconsidered. > > > > > > > However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 > > > > > > U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous > > > > > > court), "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the > > > > > > vigor and limits the variety of public debate." This decision > > > > > > differs > > > > > > from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, where there > > > > > > is > > > > > > no such technical limit on the number of possible newspapers. > > > > > > > In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not forbid > > > > > > editorials by non-profit stations that received grants from the > > > > > > Corporation for Public Broadcasting (FCC v. League of Women Voters > > > > > > of > > > > > > California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)). The Court's 5-4 majority decision > > > > > > by > > > > > > William J. Brennan, Jr. stated that while many now considered that > > > > > > expanding sources of communication had made the Fairness Doctrine's > > > > > > limits unnecessary, "We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our > > > > > > longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC > > > > > > that technological developments have advanced so far that some > > > > > > revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be > > > > > > required." (footnote 11). After noting that the FCC was considering > > > > > > repealing the Fairness Doctrine rules on editorials and personal > > > > > > attacks out of fear that those rules might be "chilling speech", the > > > > > > Court added > > > > > > > Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, > > > > > > decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on > > > > > > the > > > > > > legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, > > > > > > were > > > > > > it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine "[has] > > > > > > the > > > > > > net effect or reducing rather than enhancing" speech, we would then > > > > > > be > > > > > > forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in > > > > > > that > > > > > > case. (footnote 12).[7] > > > > > > > On Nov 11, 12:09 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > i hate to break it to you but the fairness doctrine has never been > > > > > > > ruled unconstitutional . next time do a little research ! > > > > > > > > On Nov 10, 8:04 pm, KeithInTampa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 3:11 am, "mike [Chief Moonbat] 532" wrote: > > > > > > > > > please show how and where the fairness doctrine violated the > > > > > > > > constitution ! > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > How about for starters, that little clause that states, > > > > > > > > "Congress > > > > > > > > shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the > > > > > > > > press..." > > > > > > > > > I doubt if you have ever read the document, but assuming for a > > > > > > > > second > > > > > > > > that I am incorrect, and you have read the document, it is > > > > > > > > clear from > > > > > > > > a number of your postings that you don't understand the > > > > > > > > verbiage. You > > > > > > > > are not alone, Senator Charles Schumer has for years > > > > > > > > demonstrated that > > > > > > > > he does not understand the Constitution of the United States, > > > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > Moonbats in New York continue to re-elect this Anti-American. > > > > > > > > > With regard to a new, revised Fairness Doctrine, I think the > > > > > > > > socialists are biting off more than they can proverbially chew. > > > > > > > > As I > > > > > > > > understand it, this bill would apply to all forms of media, > > > > > > > > that are > > > > > > > > open, public airwaves. This would include ABC, NBC and CBS, so > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > essence, it will mean the demise of their biased news > > > > > > > > broadcasts. The > > > > > > > > same goes for shows like The View, Boston Legal, well, damn near > > > > > > > > everything that is produced in California would have to be > > > > > > > > afforded > > > > > > > > equal time. > > > > > > > > > Excuse my language, but I can think of no better > > > > > > > > term....."Clusterfuck" comes to mind....- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
