http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/fairness_doctrine_is_unconsitutional.htm
What do ya'll think of this?

It's a dangerous attack on our freedom of speech. The scary thing isn't
that democrats are trying to enact the fairness doctrine again, it's
that Republicans (like Trent Lott) are agreeing with them. Currently,
the people decide what is on the radio, by listening to programs that
they like. It's democracy and free-market in action. The fairness
doctrine is a giant leap away from the principles this nation was
founded upon and towards the silencing and oppression of the masses.

I agree i do not like it either. But it is the same thing that is called
cultic when you try to get back to 1st century beliefs. What do you
think has happened in almost 2000 years thier?... Miles

I'm not informed on this issue, but I can recognize absurdly biased
writing when I see it.

massagetrade,

"By the end of the war, Hitler's policies of territorial conquest and
racial subjugation had brought death and destruction to tens of millions
of people, including the genocide of some six million Jews in what is
now known as the Holocaust."

Biased, yet true! Notice that they didn't waste time mentioning that
Adolf Hitler's goal of exterminating the Jews was actually cutting edge
science at the time? No need, who cares if Darwinists believed that
some humans were less deserving of life, the scientists were wrong and
so was Hitler.

The fairness doctrine would require that either Ruth Limbaugh (or any
other political talkshow host) be taken off the air OR the radio station
give equal time to opposing view points. The problem is, how many
potential opposing view points are there? How is that fair to the radio
station? Rush Limbaugh sells commercial time, but the "opposing view
point" shows might not. The fairness doctrine is unworkable for many
reasons and it is also anti-American.

First of all, let me say that I would openly and honestly oppose any law
whose attempts or wording could discriminate against or limit the
freedoms that this country has lived by and has written as doctrine.

This is why, I challenge the system when I see oppression, bigotry or
restrictions of our laws.

As for this "doctrine" being brought back - I can not imagine it in my
wildest dreams. But my fair mindedness, my prohibit me from seeing what
might happen, so if attempts to bring this back even look like they are
being successful, you will see an uprising that we didn't think we had
in us.

NOW - as far as the link you sent LW - I could barely skim it fast
enought. All I saw was some unhappy soul, who only wants to stir up the
emotions of the Christian community. Bringing up this doctrine was
clearly a way to demonstrate to the Christian community that THEY are
already being oppressed, and treated unfairly. Whoever is at the heart
of that link, picked all the right groups and situations to do just
that. In fact, to me it only serves to rial up good people against the
groups that support homosexuality, and encourage hate against them and
the people they support. This person makes Christianity and all it's
believers out to be those discriminated against, if this is so, how many
hate crimes are committed against Christians each year, month, day just
because they are Christian??

People really need to open and look around them when they read such
things.

TLW, I believe your intention was to raise an important issue for
discussion. My -opinion- is that particular article, as an means to
'inform' on the issue, is that it takes bias to an absurd level. This
has nothing to do with the validity of a pro or con or other position,
its related to the writers and non-discriminating readers of that
article.

Spider, I'm generally very suspicious of the idea that one can legislate
a 'fair presentation of ideas', for exactly the reasons you gave. One
can legislate against slander, against false advertising, in other
words: against certain kinds of false statements - but to attempt
coercion of a 'fair discussion' doctrines of in this kind just doesn't
make sense to me.

(Of course I realize there is always going to be some degree of bias, in
any effort to communicate.)

For everyone, I certainly did not mean to confuse the issue of (a)
quality of the article and (b) one's position on the fairness doctrine.

Redy, I had a slightly different take on the article, but I did see
someone who has no personal interest in 'truth' whatsoever, except when
he can use it to bolster his position.

The people pushing this "fairness" doctrine are failing to mention one
point. They claim to be wanting an equal voice, however, if they refuse
to come onto a show and give a rebuttal, the show won't be able to voice
their views on that subject.

Ahhhh! A welfare program for the media? Wonderful. Well I guess if that
is what has to be done to keep Al Franken's stupid ass on the air.
Watching moss grow is more exciting than these yahoos that want
"equal time". Here's a clue: be entertaining. Can you imagine riding
down the road listening to the "oceans breeze" talk show? I think
Limbaugh is a puppet and a mouth piece so I don't listen to him but
millions do. Without the entertainment bits, he would have tanked long
ago. As far as Al Franken goes, same thing. A mouthpiece beholding to
his party as well but boring to the verge of suicide. If there is a
market for liberal talk shows they will flourish, if not then so sorry,
maybe they should consider why that is.

guys I was just doing research for one of my law classes. I found this
article that led me to two important cases
Redlion and Miami Herald.
I must agree in the sense that writer was somehow bias.
I've never heard before about the fairness doctrine, so I wanted to know
more what people thinks about the concept than the article itself.

Regards

TLW

what a weird sense of entitlement some people have.
so let me see if i got this right,
say i have a dissenting view that is the minority, i want my view to be
the only view that gets any attention hopefully bringing it into the
majority view, so i do whatever it takes to shut you up because your
view obviously has a following and i cant stand that.

is it kind of like people who would have you believe that their view is
the only view?

the war is wrong, you cant disagree with me.
the world is in climatic kaos, you cant disagree with me.
america sucks, you cant disagree with me.
under god should never be said, cant disagree.
gays cant marry, cant disagree
aids was a scam created by the government
can not question a teachers ability to teach, cant hold them
accountable.
cant speak out against this or that without being a bigot.
cant have your own opinion as a matter of fact.
need to start wearing all black with red armbands

fairness doctrine- you mean the socialist or communist playbook being
touted by diane fienstien and nancy pelosi- ladies you make me wanna
puke.