If you think I'm joking, just read this article.
Another senator lines up behind 'Fairness Doctrine'
If you're like my wife and don't like to read things with lots of words, let me tell you what this is all about. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other conservative talk show hosts dominate the radio airwaves, so Democrats want to silence them by forcing the broadcast owners to air more liberal shows.
Let's have a show of hands from everyone who has ever been forced to listen to conservative talk radio at gun point. Conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves because that's what people want to listen to. If they want a liberal viewpoint, they'll watch MSNBC, CNN, non-local ABC, NBC or CBS, or read the NY Times, Los Angeles Times, or a myriad of other papers around the country. It's not like people don't have plenty of choices.
Make no mistake about it--this is not about promoting diversity of opinions. This is about abolishing differences of opinions. The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Someone please explain to me how forcing radio stations to replace or supplement conservative talk shows with liberal content would not amount to a law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
It is estimated that approximately 21 million people a week listen to Rush Limbaugh and approximately 14 million people a week listen to Sean Hannity. Just think how many more millions of ill-informed voters there would be if Limbaugh and Hannity were taken off the air. I'll be the first to tell you I don't care for the personality of either of them, but if I want to be made aware of news items that are not very complimentary of liberals, I have to listen to those shows because the main stream media ignores them.
If the Democrats get their way and this legislation is enacted, we will be well on our way to tyranny. If you don't believe me, go look at any other country with state-owned media and tell me how much freedom those countries have. We are headed in a very dangerous direction here and I sincerely hope people will wake up to what's going on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I read an interesting column a while ago. I don't remember who wrote it, but it said that the justification for the original fairness doctine and what allowed it to pass 1st amendment challenges was the scarcity of the airwaves. The writer said that the fairness doctrine wouldn't pass a 1st amendment challenge today because there are so many sources of opinion, i.e. internet, satelite radio, etc. The airwaves are not nearly as important as the were in the past. This sounds fairly persuasive, and I would like to think it is true, but we have seen in the abortion protest cases that the supreme court will bend over backwards to justify speech limitations if some important liberal political issue is in play. I don't have as much faith as the writer did that justices like Ginsburg can put aside their political views and protect 1st amendment rights. But I am sure we will see soon...I hope I am wrong.
ReplyDeleteOh, and if you want intelligent talk radio, listen to Michael Medved (2 pm to 5pm on 1070 AM on weekdays) and Larry Elder (available on itunes). These guys are both very intelligent and a little less of knee-jerk partisans. Actually, although he has been supporting republicans lately, Larry Elder is supposedly a libertarian. Elder was a lawyer and in the past had one of those TV shows like Judge Judy has.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?
ReplyDeleteI don't particularly care for Rush's enormous ego, and I really don't like the way Sean talks over everybody he interviews. With that said, I'm glad they do what they do. For the same reason, I appreciate the Drudge Report.
ReplyDelete