Opinion of the FCC

[Free Palestine]

FF until Reagan removed the fairness doctrine.

Clear violation of the first amendment.

depends on your interpretation and furthermore the doctrine has been upheld in the courts.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to interpret, in fact the founders intentionally meant it to be that way. Freedom of speech shall not be abridged by congress. Freedom of speech is unlimited, imho. And who really cares what the courts say, they're bunk IMHO.

It hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, and thus the fairness doctrine is not unconstitutional(even when challenged)

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.  The fairness doctrine is unconstitutional because giving a beaurocratic agency the power to force companies to show opposing viewpoints is not a delegated power of Congress.

You are making the argument that it should be ruled unconstitutional based on your logic

Because it is unconstitutional, you dumb.

when did the supreme court make that ruling? just a simple question.

That is irrelevant.  The Supreme Court has ruled that blacks are not citizens and that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to tell you how much wheat you can grow.  Giving the Supreme Court the sole power to interpret the Constitution is like letting a sixteen year old drive a mint-condition '57 Thunderbird.

they are the ones who decide what is constitutional and what is not, and anyone who knows what the supreme court is should know this. What you are arguing is that the fairness doctrine should be ruled unconstitutional, and thus you are making the ought should argument. Perhaps you should take a basic philosophy course, or just stfu and diaf. Look dawg this is something even a high school debate team would understand....

Read the Constitution, and tell me what fucking part of it says that Congress can allow a beaurocratic agency to force private broadcasting companies to show opposing viewpoints.  If the Supreme Court rules this constitutional they are full of shit, and should be stripped of their power to stealth-amend the Constitution the way they do.

The SCOTUS did rule it to be constitutional, and thus it is constitutional. Nobody else in this country can decide what is constitutional and what is not, but various individuals can argue over wether or not something should be considered unconstitutional or not.

The Supreme Court was never intended to have the power to stealth-amend the Constitution and twist the words of the founders.  Thomas Jefferson warned that if the Supreme Court were to have this power, we would be subjected to the tyranny of an oligarchy.  And that is exactly what is happening.  We saw this in Dredd Scott and during the New Deal.

So you would have agreed with Dredd Scott then?

No, but Ron Paul would have if you ever read his views on citizenship.

Basically I would realize that the supreme court ruling in Dredd Scott would be constitutional because of the court, but I would still argue that their ruling should be overturned and made unconstitutional.

Durr hurr Ron Paul thinks blacks aren't citizens, right.  Hurr

You don't think that there's something wrong when the Supreme Court can rule that blacks aren't citizens, with absolutely no Constitutional justification?  You think they should still be the supreme arbiters of the Constitution, even after shit like that?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

FF until Reagan removed the fairness doctrine.

Clear violation of the first amendment.

depends on your interpretation and furthermore the doctrine has been upheld in the courts.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to interpret, in fact the founders intentionally meant it to be that way. Freedom of speech shall not be abridged by congress. Freedom of speech is unlimited, imho. And who really cares what the courts say, they're bunk IMHO.

It hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, and thus the fairness doctrine is not unconstitutional(even when challenged)

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.  The fairness doctrine is unconstitutional because giving a beaurocratic agency the power to force companies to show opposing viewpoints is not a delegated power of Congress.

You are making the argument that it should be ruled unconstitutional based on your logic

Because it is unconstitutional, you dumb.

when did the supreme court make that ruling? just a simple question.

That is irrelevant.  The Supreme Court has ruled that blacks are not citizens and that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to tell you how much wheat you can grow.  Giving the Supreme Court the sole power to interpret the Constitution is like letting a sixteen year old drive a mint-condition '57 Thunderbird.

they are the ones who decide what is constitutional and what is not, and anyone who knows what the supreme court is should know this. What you are arguing is that the fairness doctrine should be ruled unconstitutional, and thus you are making the ought should argument. Perhaps you should take a basic philosophy course, or just stfu and diaf. Look dawg this is something even a high school debate team would understand....

Read the Constitution, and tell me what fucking part of it says that Congress can allow a beaurocratic agency to force private broadcasting companies to show opposing viewpoints.  If the Supreme Court rules this constitutional they are full of shit, and should be stripped of their power to stealth-amend the Constitution the way they do.

The SCOTUS did rule it to be constitutional, and thus it is constitutional. Nobody else in this country can decide what is constitutional and what is not, but various individuals can argue over wether or not something should be considered unconstitutional or not.

The Supreme Court was never intended to have the power to stealth-amend the Constitution and twist the words of the founders.  Thomas Jefferson warned that if the Supreme Court were to have this power, we would be subjected to the tyranny of an oligarchy.  And that is exactly what is happening.  We saw this in Dredd Scott and during the New Deal.

Than what government body gets to decide what is constitutional and what is not?

[Bo]

Lean HPs.

[fezzyfestoon]

A moronic inconvenience.

[Frink]

FF only because it pisses off those I disagree with.

[fezzyfestoon]

FF only because it pisses off those I disagree with.

Uh...alright

[Earth]

Also, respect their (ultimately futile) efforts to defend Net Neutrality.

It may not be so futile. With the advent of better hardware, and faster connections, companies need to see the advantage of NN, and support it (monies), even if it's not for the best of intentions.

FF, to a fairly decent degree. Crap for the wasted effort to censor.

[Derek]

unnecessary government spending and a bureaucracy