Censorship: The New Amerikan Way

SCUDSBROTHER · #1 02-07-2009, 08:24 PM

Just amazing how people use him as an example of something wrong, and then turn around and use him to try to prove some Conservative bull is a good thing.

SCUDSBROTHER · #2 02-07-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

Al said it himself. Where have you been ?

You seriously think he wants a righty in his studio, or on his show ?

when have you heard him calling for the FD ?

Put 2 and 2 together.
Lefties are the only ones calling for it cause right-wing talk radio is beating'em
senseless in the ratings.

Quit your cryin' when there are still thousands of places to listen to whoever will
tell you what you want to hear.

This isn't lefties crying. Look who started the thread. It's a response to the Farness Doctrine coming back(only reason it was gone was Reagan, Scalia, Bork etc.) It's about adding alternative views. I don't know how that's censorship.

timmgirvan · #3 02-07-2009, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

This isn't lefties crying. Look who started the thread. It's a response to the Farness Doctrine coming back(only reason it was gone was Reagan, Scalia, Bork etc.) It's about adding alternative views. I don't know how that's censorship.

If the left can pay for their views to be shared on the airwaves then so be it
but that doesn't mean that the govt. needs to fund their shows.

SCUDSBROTHER · #4 02-07-2009, 08:48 PM

"The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. "-Somebody who disagrees with Honu

Honu · #5 02-07-2009, 08:51 PM

Why does someone have to listen to something they dont like? Turn it off if you dont agree or dont want to hear it , then you can use another one of your freedoms to put something on that will make you smile.

Honu · #6 02-07-2009, 08:53 PM

Scuds the reasoning is total bullsheet dude and you know it , you are just looking for something to debate about .

SCUDSBROTHER · #7 02-07-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu

Scuds the reasoning is total bullsheet dude and you know it , you are just looking for something to debate about .

Well, no, someone else wanted to debate about it. I didn't start the thread. Someone called it censorship. It's not censorship. Maybe a kid growing up in Alabama should be exposed to more than just the one view on their airways. You live in California, and you're assuming other areas have our choices of views to listen to. They don't. You're assuming there is access to alternative views everywhere.

Honu · #8 02-07-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well, no, someone else wanted to debate about it. I didn't start the thread. Someone called it censorship. It's not censorship. Maybe a kid growing up in Alabama should be exposed to more than just the one view on their airways. You live in California, and you're assuming other areas have our choices of views to listen to. They don't. You're assuming there is access to alternative views everywhere.

So a kid in Alabama has no other source of information to see all points of view but a radio station? I didnt know they didnt have libraries or newspapers or internet or television in Alabama . I havent lived in California all my life and somehow I have always been able to get information when I needed it . I think they should give 4 billion dollars to Alabama in the stimulis package so they can have sources of information besides radio so that the children of the state can be informed .

Honu · #9 02-07-2009, 09:47 PM

Another point also , if I owned a radio station , I would play what I wanted to play and people who bought airtime would know it and if they didnt like they could feel very free to take their buisness elsewhere.

SCUDSBROTHER · #10 02-07-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu

Why does someone have to listen to something they dont like? Turn it off if you dont agree or dont want to hear it , then you can use another one of your freedoms to put something on that will make you smile.

Whatever your views are, they should be well thought out enough to hold up when criticized by someone who disagrees with them. Most all the bad things that humans have done happened when a lack of opposing views were around. Be it Nazi Germany. Be it when The Japanese were slaughtering the people they did.

Honu · #11 02-07-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Whatever your views are, they should be well thought out enough to hold up when criticized by someone who disagrees with them. Most all the bad things that humans have done happened when a lack of opposing views were around. Be it Nazi Germany. Be it when The Japanese were slaughtering the people they did.

Scuds , come on , if you are of a certain faith should churches of other faiths be forced to preach your brand if you happen to show up at their church one day? Its about freedom to express , anyone who buys airtime as long as the people abide by the rules of the FCC they should be able to say their point of view without another view if they so choose. , if you dont like it you can buy airtime and advertise you are stating an opposing view and people can choose to listen or not.
Its not like we dont have choices in this country and that is what makes it so great , we can choose to be ,do and LISTEN to what we want as long as it doesnt break any laws.

SCUDSBROTHER · #12 02-07-2009, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu

Scuds , come on , if you are of a certain faith should churches of other faiths be forced to preach your brand if you happen to show up at their church one day? Its about freedom to express , anyone who buys airtime as long as the people abide by the rules of the FCC they should be able to say their point of view without another view if they so choose. , if you dont like it you can buy airtime and advertise you are stating an opposing view and people can choose to listen or not.
Its not like we dont have choices in this country and that is what makes it so great , we can choose to be ,do and LISTEN to what we want as long as it doesnt break any laws.

Churches aren't public places. Airwaves are Gov't owned, and people buy a license to use that frequency. They don't own that frequency. So, this is an effort to keep people with only one point of view from buying up all the licenses for the frequencies. From what you're saying, if you're in a Conservative State (where Progressive radio is not commercially viable,) then only Conservative view points should be heard there. No alternative opinions heard there, because not enough people there are progressive.

Cannon Shell · #13 02-07-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Churches aren't public places. Airwaves are Gov't owned, and people buy a license to use that frequency. They don't own that frequency. So, this is an effort to keep people with only one point of view from buying up all the licenses for the frequencies. From what you're saying, if you're in a Conservative State (where Progressive radio is not commercially viable,) then only Conservative view points should be heard there. No alternative opinions heard there, because not enough people there are progressive.

That is stupidity. First of all the amount of people who get the majority of information from the radio is almost non-existant. Secondly who in the govt gets to choose what gets to be broadcast? The minister of information? Only a damn fool or a communist thinks that govt control of the content of ANY broadcasts is a good thing. Even the goddamn socialists that seem to be taking over the country would oppose that unless they were just blatantly partisan.

Honu · #14 02-07-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Churches aren't public places. Airwaves are Gov't owned, and people buy a license to use that frequency. They don't own that frequency. So, this is an effort to keep people with only one point of view from buying up all the licenses for the frequencies. From what you're saying, if you're in a Conservative State (where Progressive radio is not commercially viable,) then only Conservative view points should be heard there. No alternative opinions heard there, because not enough people there are progressive.

No Im saying go buy a license , speak your point of view 24/7 , say what you have to say.

Cannon Shell · #15 02-07-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Whatever your views are, they should be well thought out enough to hold up when criticized by someone who disagrees with them. Most all the bad things that humans have done happened when a lack of opposing views were around. Be it Nazi Germany. Be it when The Japanese were slaughtering the people they did.

I know you live in California but do you really think that the current state of news information in this country is one sided or close to Nazi Germany?