i rather doubt it even the bush supreme court has seen the error of their ways are starting to rule in favor of the country instead of for the RNC and bush
On Nov 12, 6:27 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
