The Fairness Doctrine.

[Moooooo]

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy enforced in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission that required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in a fair and balanced manner.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[opebo]

Yes.  Without this doctrine media will naturally represent only the views of the owners, who will of course be almost uniformly right-wing.

[Frodo]

Yes -if it will help reduce the polarization between right and left.   

[A18]

No, because I'm not a communist who wants government regulating view points.

[Blue Rectangle]

No.  The role of the FCC should be limited to prevention of interference (a property/interstate commerce issue).  Regulation of transmitters should be a state/local issue, as it really only concerns local zoning.  Any effort by the FCC to regulate content beyond the usual limits on public speech is clearly a First Amendment violation.

[opebo]

No.  The role of the FCC should be limited to prevention of interference (a property/interstate commerce issue).  Regulation of transmitters should be a state/local issue, as it really only concerns local zoning.  Any effort by the FCC to regulate content beyond the usual limits on public speech is clearly a First Amendment violation.

Not at all, Blue Rectangle.  What these regulations do is ensure that speech is available to the non-rich as well as the rich.  They increase and distribute the right to speak, they do not limit free speech.

[opebo]

No, because I'm not a communist who wants government regulating view points.

The Fairness Doctrine doesn't regulate viewpoints, A18, it merely ensures that persons who are not rich are allowed to speak.  In normal capitalism only the very wealthy are allowed to speak, and commoners are competely barred from speech.

[A18]

The speech is commercial -- it is targeted to an audience.

[opebo]

The speech is commercial -- it is targeted to an audience.

So?  That has no bearing on who is allowed to speak in a capitalist society - only persons with large amounts of money.

[A18]

The speech that interests people will be heard.

[opebo]

The speech that interests people will be heard.

No, actually the speech that interests people with money will be heard, under capitalist censorship.

[A18]

So anyone with a TV or radio.

[Blue Rectangle]

No.  The role of the FCC should be limited to prevention of interference (a property/interstate commerce issue).  Regulation of transmitters should be a state/local issue, as it really only concerns local zoning.  Any effort by the FCC to regulate content beyond the usual limits on public speech is clearly a First Amendment violation.

Not at all, Blue Rectangle.  What these regulations do is ensure that speech is available to the non-rich as well as the rich.  They increase and distribute the right to speak, they do not limit free speech.

Wow.  I really didn't think you'd support a government agency that demands that the word "tits" can't be said on TV.

[opebo]

So anyone with a TV or radio.

No, persons who may buy what advertisers are selling.  So people who are either 1) extremely poor, or 2) members of very small niche groups will not be allowed to speak.

Also any opinions which will tend to either offend or otherwise reduce the listenership of the majority will be censored.

[opebo]

No.  The role of the FCC should be limited to prevention of interference (a property/interstate commerce issue).  Regulation of transmitters should be a state/local issue, as it really only concerns local zoning.  Any effort by the FCC to regulate content beyond the usual limits on public speech is clearly a First Amendment violation.

Not at all, Blue Rectangle.  What these regulations do is ensure that speech is available to the non-rich as well as the rich.  They increase and distribute the right to speak, they do not limit free speech.

Wow.  I really didn't think you'd support a government agency that demands that the word "tits" can't be said on TV.

I'm all for allowing the word tits, as you may well imagine.  I am not, however, for a complete lack of protection of the first amendment rights of the working class.

[John Dibble]

The speech that interests people will be heard.

No, actually the speech that interests people with money will be heard, under capitalist censorship.

How so? Is an individual who can't afford air time forbidden from speaking in public? Are they forbidden to write letters to the editor? Are they forbidden from taking any of the other cheaper avenues by which they can voice their views?

[Blue Rectangle]

No.  The role of the FCC should be limited to prevention of interference (a property/interstate commerce issue).  Regulation of transmitters should be a state/local issue, as it really only concerns local zoning.  Any effort by the FCC to regulate content beyond the usual limits on public speech is clearly a First Amendment violation.

Not at all, Blue Rectangle.  What these regulations do is ensure that speech is available to the non-rich as well as the rich.  They increase and distribute the right to speak, they do not limit free speech.

Wow.  I really didn't think you'd support a government agency that demands that the word "tits" can't be said on TV.

I'm all for allowing the word tits, as you may well imagine.  I am not, however, for a complete lack of protection of the first amendment rights of the working class.

Turning private property into public property is the first step in taking rights away, especially First Amendment rights:

I may freely exercise my religion--on private property, not public property.

I may speak freely on private property, but many limits are put of speech when it is public.

I may peaceably assemble with others on private property, but on public property we have to apply for a permit ahead of time.

A private press is free from almost all regulation, but when the press is using public property (as in the case of the "public" airwaves), restrictions may apply (such as the topic of this thread).

And that's just the First Amendment.  Second Amendment rights can also be heavily limited on public property.  The Third obviously only applies to private property, and the Fourth does little to protect one from searches when on public property.

If that's not convincing enough, we could look at Communist states, where private property is banned and the people have almost no rights on the public land they supposedly own.

[Emsworth]

Definitely not. The idea that the government should control the content of television programs strikes me as rather authoritarian.