knoxsouthy wrote:
That's what the first amendment, that the liberals are violating, are completely ignoring.
Where? Where in the fuck are Liberals doing this?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- News Flash: Liberals hate Fox News
News Flash: Liberals hate Fox NewsFollow
Where? Where in the fuck are Liberals doing this?
The govn has no business regulating political speech of any kind.
They're not, little buddy. They own the airwaves, just like Tennessee owns the U. If I hang a "Vols suck" banner on one of the buildings and they take it down, are they violating the 1st amendment?
See, little buddy? You're arguing the wrong case. There is no proposal in congress to prevent EIB from going satellite and broadcasting whatever they want. If, they want to use airwaves owed by the US government, though, they have to abide by the rules.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
knoxsouthy wrote:
You still don't see a violation of the 1rst amendment?
It's not a law currently nor has it been used since 1985 successfully. So no, I see no violations of any amendment. Taking about legislation isn't illegal regardless of what you think about it.
knoxsouthy wrote:
I agree. But legislation that violates the 1rst amendment should be recognized for what it is.
/sigh. In order for it be in violation, it's got to be law. Then someone can file suit and the courts can rule on it. That's the standard MO in the US.
Until then, shut the fu*k up about it.
As long as those 'rules' aren't a violation of the constitution.
They aren't, little buddy, no one would seriously argue they were who understood the legal system at all.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
No, they're really not.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I admittedly don't kow much about the Fairness Doctrine, but what I could find on it was interesting.
Apparently it was used by the FCC back in 1969:
The article says that a lot of journalists feel that it is in violation of the first amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, and Regan vetoed the legislation to make it into a law.
Apparently it was used by the FCC back in 1969:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm wrote:
The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.
The article says that a lot of journalists feel that it is in violation of the first amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, and Regan vetoed the legislation to make it into a law.
The article says that a lot of journalists feel that it is in violation of the first amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise
It's obviously not a violation of the 1st amendment. This is a stupid discussion at this point. The government can regulate use of things it owns, including regulating speech. This is the reason Generals and Admirals don't endorse political candidates, among 1000 other examples.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
It's obviously not a violation of the 1st amendment. This is a stupid discussion at this point. The government can regulate use of things it owns, including regulating speech. This is the reason Generals and Admirals don't endorse political candidates, among 1000 other examples.
I don't suppose it's much different from disallowing explicit scenes or profanity on basic cable channels.
I hate Fox News because its a steaming pile of misinformed misleading bigoted biased sensationilist crap, pushed by an ill-informed and unproffessional collection of idiots, who are to journalism what GW Bush is to conservatism.
They are, imo, welcome to peddle their endless stream of right-wing propaganda to their audience using the 'lowest common denominator' style of presentation (freedom of speech and all) but they should also expect to be ridiculed and protested at, by anyone who has a knot of synapses in their head larger than a frog.
Faux News is to 'journalism', what reality telivision is to 'reality'.
They are, imo, welcome to peddle their endless stream of right-wing propaganda to their audience using the 'lowest common denominator' style of presentation (freedom of speech and all) but they should also expect to be ridiculed and protested at, by anyone who has a knot of synapses in their head larger than a frog.
Faux News is to 'journalism', what reality telivision is to 'reality'.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
I hate Fox News because its a steaming pile of misinformed misleading bigoted biased sensationilist crap, pushed by an ill-informed and unproffessional collection of idiots, who are to journalism what GW Bush is to conservatism.
They are, imo, welcome to peddle their endless stream of right-wing propaganda to their audience using the 'lowest common denominator' style of presentation (freedom of speech and all) but they should also expect to be ridiculed and protested at, by anyone who has a knot of synapses in their head larger than a frog.
Faux News is to 'journalism', what reality telivision is to 'reality'.
The proposal in question wouldn't effect Fox News in any way.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#44REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 26 2008 at 11:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) We need MORE of these F**K America people on the news. It mearly exposes the wacko's and the democratic party for what they have become. I was laughing my *** off when I saw obama's numbers drop 2 points today.
Quote:
It mearly exposes the wacko's
Your words express your worth perfectly.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#46REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 26 2008 at 11:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Thats right. No arguement = sling a personal insult. You liberals are all the same.
Boomsticker wrote:
Thats right. No arguement = sling a personal insult. You liberals are all the same.
How did I insult you, exactly?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Thats right. No arguement = sling a personal insult. You liberals are all the same.
Come on baby, only three more months.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Despite what smashed says this would be a gross violation of the 1rst amendment. If we're going to force radio stations to become equitable in what political stance they choose then the mainstream media should also have to follow suit; CNN, PBS, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC. For instance for every positive Obama story all these stations should have to report a positive Mcain story. For every hit piece on the GOP there must be a hit piece on the Dems. Do you not see how this violates the 1rst amendment?
One, it would apply to PBS and NPR and ABC and NBC. It wouldn't apply to CNN because the FCC doesn't regulate cable channels.
I don't suppose it's much different from disallowing explicit scenes or profanity on basic cable channels.
This doesn't occur, unless the basic cable channels also broadcast on antenna. All censoring done by TBS or USA or whatever is strictly voluntary and market force driven.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 261
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (261)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- News Flash: Liberals hate Fox News
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC