The First Amendment to our Constitution

"Who dares not speak his free thoughts is a slave."

----Euripides

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."

----Benjamin Franklin

"It is easy to take liberty for granted when you have never had it taken from you."

----M. Grundler

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as DeTocqueville describes it, a new form of servitude."

----Friedrich August von Hayek

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do."

----Eric Hoffer

"When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free."

----Charles Evans Hughes

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

----Hubert H. Humphrey

"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power."

----Yoshimi Ishikawa

"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press and that cannot be limited without being lost."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

----Thomas Jefferson

Great post!

It is no coincidence that those who advocate a return of the Fainess Doctrine in broadcast radio are the same ones who advocate for speech codes against what they consider "Hate Speech". Apparantly, those people believe the only speech that should be free is their own, and the speech of those they disagree with can be justifiably curtailed.

What is particularly galling is those on the Left ... and it IS the Left that needs the Fairness Doctrine to foist their America-hating rhetoric on the rest of us ... because those views can't compete with mainstream conservatism in the marketplace of ideas. Air America is a perfect example. Launched as a Liberal counterpoint to Rush, Hannity, et. al., AM was a horrendous failure because it could not draw an audience outside the low single digits (in term of market share).

Why was that? Because the thoughts spouted were so idiotic, nobody wanted to listen to it. So, their only recourse is to mandate people listen. That's not freedom. That's authoritarianism and it has no place in this country.

Great quotes Berf!

I couldn't agree more David.
Thanks

Challenging the Fairness Doctrine or any aspect, past or potential, confronts the legitimacy of Congress’ FCC the Court has ruled favorable over and again.

When broadcasters take licenses, do they not accept the authority of the federal government’s rule-making FCC?

But, why do broadcasters need licenses issued by the federal government in the first place? What justifications are there?

Or is it that couched here is a worry and a concern over, namely resentment towards a possibility of having to further compete in a limited marketplace of ideas and images Liberty commands?

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil [and] in its worst state, an intolerable one." ~ Thomas Paine

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

They may as well rewrite and take that part out because, in too mamy cases, it's completely ignored anyway.

The fact that religion was the first thing mentioned in these freedoms listed is so significant. It's part of the proof of how important religion was to the Founding Fathers. This initial idea of separation of church and state is linked to the letter of Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists where the phrase was first coined. It has no place in the Constitution. It simply is not stated, nor is such implied.

If you read herein, you will see what happened. "Given the gravity of the issues involved in the debate over the wall metaphor, it is surprising that so little effort has been made to go behind the printed text of the Danbury Baptist letter to unlock its secrets. Jefferson's handwritten draft of the letter is held by the Library's Manuscript Division. Inspection reveals that nearly 30 percent of the draft -- seven of 25 lines -- was deleted by the president prior to publication."

I don't know whether you've seen my recent articles, Dan, but researching them, I came across a couple of letters that Jefferson had written in defense of himself as a Christian since he was being painted as other than such. This explanation goes right along with my findings.

The letter to the Danbury Baptists was written so that there would be no proclamation for mandatory prayer and fasting as it had been in England. Thr prior Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, written into law by Jefferson in 1786 was to be no way negated by this letter to the Danbury Baptists.

It's a little complicated to go into fully here, but I do plan to write a separate article about Jefferson when the 3rd part of my series is finished, and I will include how the separation of church and state has been misconstrued and used by secularists to unconstitutionally promote their agenda, something never intended by Jefferson.

Thanks Sue I'll check out your links

Dan, you know, as I read more about Jefferson, he was a very complicated guy, and as intelligent as he was, he made some foolish mistakes for which he was sorely sorry. Most of the mistakes tended to do with political agenda which made him look like an Atheist. When the damage was already done, he went to great lengths to prove himself otherwise, but too little too late, apparently. The attempts to prove himself nothing but Christian had already been obscured by those who would have him look otherwise.

I wrote about this the other day, Dan, and had people question (asking for graphs and proof) that liberal talk shows are not profitable. :-) The proof is that they're not on the air. If they made money, they'd be there.

Sue, I'm glad you're researching Jefferson and discovering these things. For far too long, he has been painted as something he was not.

Excellent conversation going on here, I also feel that Jefferson has been painted as an atheist for far too long. We can know our founding fathers if we all took the time to study them and the political atmosphere of their times. I am currently reading "American Lion" a history of Andrew Jackson, a very good read.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, I feel if they kill talk radio and political shows they are killing freedom of speech and that would be unfair.

Marilyn, unfortunately, the damage is irrevocable, at this point. I am also going to have to go to the library for research on this because as I look through the Internet I see the liberal interpretations of documents, annotated from their secular and erroneous claims. People take this stuff and they use it as their gospel reference as to what Jefferson contended which is a false interpretation of such. There have been cases decided according to those erroneous interpretations that have set the precedence for the kinds of problems we have today, and that's unfortunate, but the forces of evil have always been at work and have left their indelible mark on the principles of the Constitution as they were intended by the Founding Fathers.

So when one states they prefer life in the company of the same sex and wishes to proclaim it, sanctify it and formalize it in a legally binding contract, just like two people of the opposite sex may do freely anywhere, that person is denied the freedom of speech? Or is the freedom of speech conditional upon "religion?" A gay couple does not require YOU to be gay. Does not require YOU to make your children gay. Does not request anything more unreasonable than what is commonly granted opposite sex relationships.

If you can justify in the first Amendment restrictions upon speech for gays then you can temporize anything, including the right to bear arms.

BTW the Fairness Doctrine does not impede the free speech of anybody. It merely prohibits he who has the most money from dicating what is "fact," and what is not. For example, say a President wishes to make war unprovoked upon a country and makes claims again and again and again that have slight if any base in fact and those facts aquired in suspect or patently illegal ways, is not the electorate disenfranchised by lack of credible opposing view? If we are to be the prime motivators in a Democracy and our "public opinion" determiner of what a government are we not best served by the government structurally devised to provide us with all sides to a debate?

As pointed out, the opponents of Fairness are the "created reality" crowd of the RW. The proponents are those who wish the people to think for themselves.

Sue, you represent that quintessent Rovian neo-con: Truth is whatever falsehood repeated long enough, loud enough and often enough. If God was a Republican what sort of credit and accuracy would you give the Bible?

Yes, who needs fairness. It's UnAmerican!!

I keep reading all of these dire warnings regarding the fairness doctrine, yet nothing has been introduced or suggested by Congress, and Obama certainly has stated that he does not support such an initiative. Could someone provide some additional information that explains what the fuss is about? Because right now, it is all a panicked hypothesis and I can't comment on a panicked hypothesis, as there is nothing to base comments on.

Absolutely not, Sam, are my contentions, in any way, the partisan affiliation you would like to give them. They are derived from reading, understanding, researching that reading and researching the finding of the research to makes sure that what I write is correct. You are right, though, the lies have been repeated so often by secularists like yourself, that they have become false truths that people believe. As I said, the Internet is dominated by these false claims so that's what they see and hear and that's why people believe them. Oh, there's no doubt that if a falsehood is repeated long and loud enough it becomes an established truth. Personally, I'm damned tired of it. As far as your stupid question, I'll let one of your truth twisting buddies answer that. It has no place here, but obfuscation is always a huge part of your agenda to deceive, so not at all surprising.

Sue, the man wrote his own version of the Bible deleting from it all miracles because he did not believe in such mythical claptrap. Jefferson, as a philosopher, admired and respected Jesus as another. That is not the hallmark of what the Southern Baptist Convention would consider "Christian."

You are jousting with windmills.

Good post.
Some Democrats have crept so close to communism it's scary.
People like Sam (above) personify the threat these people present, wrapping their state-controlled-liberties concepts in innocuous terms.
It's like wrapping a scorpion in cotton candy.

Yes, Sam, I am well aware of that. It is a part of some of the folly of Jefferson that I spoke of above that was used to paint him as other than Christian. When I write my Jefferson article, this will be included. Appearances can be deceving, but when people have limited knowledge of truth, as long as that limited knowledge corroborates what they wish to think for whatever agenda they wish to promote, they stop right there. Instead of researching further to see the whys, the whats, the whens, the wheres and the hows, they are satisfied with facts that only convey a partial truth so they can expand the partial into something that is false according to the lies they wish to propagate. Jumping to conclusions without knowing the full story behind misleading facts is what has allowed people to believe the lies that are spread with no compunction.

I will joust with windmills until I can stop the winds of untruth that make them spin, and none of your deceitful comments taken out of the context of the truth will stop me.

There is a process for making changes to the Constitution, it should be used by those that disagree with it's meaning, not try to twist words and interpretations to what it is not. Original intent is the only way, not cherry picking judges to rule in line with any current political power, and/or personal thoughts.
I don't listen to talk radio, but any attempts to return to what is basically government control of the type of content is dangerous to me. What is sometimes thought of as good ideas at the time, don't always make good law.
Thanks.

Libs are just mad that people would rather listen to Limbaugh or Boortz than any of those dingleberries on Air America.

Bill, I don't know who Boortz is, but I can't stand Limbaugh. I was listening to Limbaugh and Coulter long before most people knew who they were. By the time they had become household names, I had stopped listening to them. For entertainment they're a diversion that can be tolerated once in awhile, but they distort truth too, and I see them as more a deterrent to credibility of any kind of right wing attitude because of how they do exactly what I said Sam was doing in my last comment.

Truth is none other than what it is and, when people distort it, no worthy purpose is served and the people are continually the losers.

"So when one states they prefer life in the company of the same sex and wishes to proclaim it, sanctify it and formalize it in a legally binding contract, just like two people of the opposite sex may do freely anywhere, that person is denied the freedom of speech?"
Sam C., Nov 21, 2008, 9:28am EST

I'm unclear as to how this relates to the topic of the article; i.e. the Fairness Doctrine; but, if Dan will permit, I'd like to point out to you Sam that gay and lesbian couples already have a right to Free Speech,as we are all witness to on a regular basis with the MSM's gay marriage coverage. These couples also already have a right to cohabitation, a right to enter into mutual contracts for the purchase of property, Powers of Attorney, et. al. They can form a life-long binding relationship under current law.

What they can't do is call themselves "married" in the eyes of the State. Massachusettes and Rhoade Island (or is it Connetticut? Well, another one of those Liberla Northeastern Hell-Hole States.)

Marriage has a definition and the definition precludes its application to two people of the same gender. The term "Race", as it applies to homo sapiens, as a precise dilineation as well. A native of Sweden, with two purely Nordic parents can not be defined as an Asian. Likewise, a homo sapien with an X and a Y chromosome is a male, even if he undergoes a dickectomy.

The bottom line is words mean things ... they have definitions for a reason. Those definitions are set for a reason, so there can be consistency ... predictability ... in our lives.

All of that is to say, don't try to conflate the two issues. They are unrelated

Liberla Northeastern Hell-Hole States

David, why do you insist on making an ass of yourself?

Limiting marriage to a particular sex is sexual discrimination (and hateful).

By the way, Bill, I wasn't saying that I think the Fairness Doctrine is fair or constitutional. They realized that in a 1987 case, " Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year." Of course, both Houses of Congress tried to pass the doctrine legislation and, if hadn't been for Reagan's veto we would be living with it now. It's absolutely absurd. (Excuse me, the Obama National Guard is ringing my doorbell. They've determined I've written my allotment of what they consider subversive speech today. I must leave.)

Sam, Let me get this straight. If a person broadcasts a point of view that appeals to a broad sector of the public, and if that person then makes a lot of money selling advertising because of the size of his audience, then the he/she is dictating what is "fact" and what is not because he/she has "the most money".

That is not logical.

If someone's radio program appeals to a large segment of the public and is more financially successful than others, we can then isn't he/she serving the public more than less successful programs? Why are you opposed to letting the people decide what programs should be on radio and TV?

If the government can decide what is "fair" in any communication medium, then the government has the power has the power to restrict free speech. That is why the founders needed the explicit statements of the Bill of Rights to protect the God given rights of the people from government. So, the demagogues in government can verbalize all of the "fairness", "local emphasis", "public airwaves", and "broadcast licensing agreements" they wish, but the issue is the right to free speech by "we the people".

If the government tries to limit any speech on any airwaves for any reason, except for those few exceptions allowed by the people, then we must have a revolution in this republic. We must, because government will never decide that speech critical of the government is "fair", and the people can never accept regulation of their speech if they wish to remain free.

?????? ???, I see by your name calling that you are a member of the lowQ group of Gather members who demonstrate their low I.Q. by name calling and insults. Come back any time you can behave in a civil manner.

I want to reiterate the link between those who are advocating the return of the (un)Fairness Doctrine and those who advocate speech codes to combat "hate speech", and at the same time tie into the issue Sam raised (even if it was not relevent to the topic).

I'm sure we've all seen the news clips of the Prop 8 protestors smacking the cross out of the hands of the old lady supporting Prop 8 and yelling obscenities and other threats in her face. I have to ask you Fairness Doctrine backers (Sam) ... why are you not standing up for her right to express her views without the intimidation of the angry mob?

Were they being "fair"? Were they being respectful of a legitimate opposing viewpoint being expressed in a public forum?

Again, it appears to me that those expressing this dire need for the return of the Fairness Doctrine are only interested in "fairness" when it relates to their point of view. They seem to believe that opposing views can, and should, be stifled.

Randy,

When ignorant asinine statements are made, they must be challenged. If your IQ were higher than mine, you would see that David's statement was ignorant at best, and a display of stupidity at worst.

Great article, Dan. I think one of the problems out there is that people--at least in my generation--aren't getting things like this in public school.

I think the more ignorant people are to what they have, the more willing they are to trade freedom for things of much lesser value. It's sad when you look at all the people in our history who have gave their time, money, and even their lives to gain and preserve freedom for future generations--and then you look how some people treat their own freedom and the freedom of others. It's not everybody in the country, but it's a significant number of people.

... David's statement was ignorant at best, and a display of stupidity at worst.

Having lived in that region for 10 years on two seperate jaunts, ignorance doesn't apply; and speaking only for myself (Randy can defend himself) I'm certain my IQ is on a par, if not exceeding yours, therefore, stupidity isn't something someone in your position should be throwing around so cavalierly.

In any event, what does your screed have to do with the topic of the article?

You made an unnecessary, ignorant statement, and I responded to it.

There is nowhere else in this country that offers more than the northeast, IMHO.

I am not bashing other areas, although I could stoop to your level and do so.

The only people against the Fairness Doctrine are those who want the status quo - which is to continue to shove mean spirited conservatism down the throats of the public. Things were definitely better when the Fairness Doctrine was in force - not because there were liberal ideas expressed but because there was honest news being reported. Since the Fairness Doctrine was discontinued - all we get is Republican talking points on the radio. That represented a hijack of the airwaves - nothing more - nothing less.

Joe,
"Things were definitely better when the Fairness Doctrine was in force - not because there were liberal ideas expressed but because there was honest news being reported."

Then you must really be upset about Fox News Channel huh Joe.

Patricia,
Thanks and your right our young people are not exposed to this or it is extremely filtered to the point of corruption and propaganda but what's worse is that they don't get it in higher education either, they get the exact opposite.
Go take a look at this site;
http://indoctrinate-u.com/
or this site;
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Our children/young people are told you can think any way you want have any opinions you choose......as long as they are the same as ours (liberal agenda)

Sue,
Have you seen this Thomas Jefferson reference?

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeffcont.htm

A lot of information on the words of President Jefferson.

I don't watch the Fox News Channel, Dan E. - So, no, I'm not upset about it. I was merely expressing an observation. It was actually pretty good to be able to turn on the radio and get unfiltered news. Today, it is only possible with public stations, but it is not the same.

Joe T.
You might enjoy watching the cable BBC America station for its news. I doubt that you will find it leaning politically.

Thanks, Samuel. I'll try it.

I was introduced to Air America a couple of summers ago. What a refreshing change to hear commentators actually back up their comments with FACTS. It sure beats that headless wonder Limbaugh.

Good banter here tonight.

"I don't watch the Fox News Channel, Dan E. - So, no, I'm not upset about it. I was merely expressing an observation. It was actually pretty good to be able to turn on the radio and get unfiltered news. Today, it is only possible with public stations, but it is not the same."

It's call choice Joe!
Turn the DIAL!

See with those on the left it's that right wing radio is on at all, as I doubt that you ever really listened to conservative radio anymore than you watch FNC today it's just the idea that conservative radio exists at all that has you so concerned.

Dan,

We have far less choices since the suspension of the Fairness Doctrine. How old are you? Anyone old enough to remember knows that this is true. Radio is a joke, today.

Sorry Joe,
That's your own biased perception of the issue not a reflection of fact.

As a fulltime member of the working class I have been away from this thread but not uninterested. Many questions to answer:

David B: What is it about a informed electorate that you find threatening? There is no attempt by proponents of the Fairness Doctrine to restrict the speech of anybody. In the only SCOTUS ruling on it, 8-0 in favor, Justice Byron White wrote: "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

If your contention that the market has spoken and the majority favors the RW propaganda on its own merits then the effect of opposing viewpoints would cause no disappation of the RW message. So there is no harm in making such viewpoints part of the political landscape. Certainly we all wish a voter make the most informed choice possible. Of course if you think that the informed voter might vote against the RW propaganda then I could understand a drive to do anything to stifle it. But, that the point of the RW objection, correct?

Violence in political demostration is not "Democracy." I do not support it. THe blazing hipocracy of someone holding a religious symbol on a secular matter is idiotic and out of place but does not warrent violence.

You contend words mean things. I agree. Words like "white only" and "colored only" and "seperate but equal" and "no Irish need apply" mean denial of civil rights to minorites
by majorities attempting to project arbitrary value systems. Marriage is a word too. If your Church of the Narrow-Minded Conservative wishes to sanctify the union of only those who posseses the appropriate organs by your definition and on private ground, so be it. Yet in the public space human rights belong to all humans and words subjectively enforced by dubious moral creed have no place. It's about the 1st Amendment of Free Speech. THe gay may define marriage anyway they please as may the straight. They need not impinge upon the rights of either.

Sue you labor to prove something that has been denied by scholars for over 2 centuries. If you can prove the unprovable then you deserve a Pulitzer, Nobel and a honored spot on Oprah's favorite books. (THe later will make you more money than the former.) But, you cannot prove it.

"There is no attempt by proponents of the Fairness Doctrine to restrict the speech of anybody."
Sam,
This is what Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he said,

"and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

In the spirit of the constitution the fairness doctrine is an abridgement of the freedom of speech.

BTW all I went of the site sponsoring the petition, 125,000 signatures! Forward it to all you know.

"Sue you labor to prove something that has been denied by scholars for over 2 centuries. If you can prove the unprovable then you deserve a Pulitzer, Nobel and a honored spot on Oprah's favorite books. (THe later will make you more money than the former.) But, you cannot prove it."

There are clearly two schools of scholarly thought on this. That you only recognize one of them doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't make the school of thought that you do not wish to recognize any the less existent and valid.

Dan Jefferson did not write the Constitution. He contributed but was one of many who did. His interpretations or opinions do not have the force of law. They are merely opinion and no less valid than those of Washington, Adams, Madision, etc., and many of those vociferously disagreed with Jefferson. The Constitution was written with clauses for Amendments to become union and indivisable with the whole. So it has been done. The SCOTUS is the vehicle of ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. In the passage you quoted Jefferson was arguing against an opinion of John Marshall concerning judical appointments of John Adams left sealed when Jefferson took office and Jefferson's duties to respect those appointments. The quote as you use and infer it is clearly out of context.

Sue, the "two schools" are the religious seeking to validate an agenda and the secular seeking to verify known historical fact. That is why the "religious" school has never been recognized outside it's clerical realm. This same school also proclaimed the world was flat, creation is 5000 years old, dinosaur bones were buried by God as a test and there is no validity to the theory of evolution. This same school promoted the inherent superiority of the white race, imprisioned Galileo for proclaiming the earth was NOT the center of the universe and on and on. This same "school" claims the Founder were "Christian."

"They are merely opinion and no less valid than those of Washington, Adams, Madision, etc., and many of those vociferously disagreed with Jefferson."
Pertaining to what Sam?
Do you have any contrary information that suggest that the Constitution should be interperted in a manner disregarding the framers and early citizens intent?

"David B: What is it about a informed electorate that you find threatening?"

Sam;

I find nothing 'threatening in the leftists' screeds that some would like to foist upon the American people. Nor am I against debating anyone on the left as to the merits and demerits our our respective positions. None of that is what is at issue here.

The point behind this latest push for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is because the Leftists have found they can't comete in the commercial marketplace when it comes to selling their ideas. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. are successful because they put out a product that millions of Americans want to listen and respond to. Those millions of ears create a commercially desirable product that advertisers are willing to pay BIG money to tap into.

Unfortunately for our leftwing brethren, all attempts from their side to market a talk format from their perspective has proven to be woefully overmatched in the commerical market, i.e. they haven't been able to compete and have gotten their butts kicked. That's not because they aren't smart people or that they don't have views worthy of being knocked down on a daily basis. It's just a vast majority of people don't want to spend three hours of their days listening to socialist schlock, therefore there's no audience for the advertisers to buy the ears of.

The marketplace determines the winners and losers, Sam. I know that's a hard thing for a die-hard Liberal like you to comrehend. But, the simple fact of the matter is most people find the Leftwing rhetoric unappealing.

Reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine will not make more room on braodcast radio for political discussions from a Leftist perspective, it will simply drive all political discussion from AM radio, because the station owners won't donate 50 percent of their air time to something they can't make money broadcasting. So, AM radio will go back to Top 40. Then the only political discussions the American people will be left with are the Left-leaning television broadcasters, and nobody is up-in-arms demanding THEY abide by the Fairness Doctrine when it means to give the Right an even break.

I'd encourage you to get all your Leftie friends together and make sure they call into Leftwing radio shows if you want more of them on the air. Heck, you now have a socialist heading up the executive branch, so it should be easy to get the enthusiasm up to do that.

Your marketplace argument is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT. Let it soak in. Despite all of Rush's, Coulter's, FOX and the rest of the stormtroopers passion the "permanent Repub majority" lasted as long as Adolf's 1000 year Reich. So the Fairness Doctrine did not play a role in the downfall of RW extremism in our time.

Apparently you have no faith in the viability of RW talking heads. If they are challenged real time then the public loses interest, no ad revenue, no show. I don't see why. If the public is so hungry for the collective stupidity of RW talk a little informed moderation should be like a drop of rain in an ocean. You are caught in your own logical trap Dave.

It's a waste of energy arguing against the "fairness doctrine." The issue is a microcasm of a much larger problem.
The proponents of collectivism are happy to have everyone fighting each other over what are various details of life under collectivism, because this assumes a tacit acceptance of the source itself.
What we should be fighting against is the doctrine of collectivism, which is the disease itself; and not exerting all our effort to refuting the myriad symptoms that manifest from it.

In this case, the issue to be confronted is not merely which broadcasters the government "license," what programming the government should allow, and how many hours per day to allow it, etc.
The issue to be confronted is whether the government should own and control the airwaves in the first place. Whether or not requiring express permission from the government in order to broadcast programs on the air is a condition compatible with human liberty.

These are the kinds of questions that must be posed to the public, if we are to ever break the chokehold that the proponents of collectivist statism have had on this country for a century or more.

Oh, sure, David. It's the marketplace of ideas that created the trash that radio is today. Boy, you sure go to great lengths to justify your myopic view of the people of this country.

Steve- to me the only role the federal government should play in radio and licensing, is in the control/management of radio waves/frequency and power. If there wasn't that control, everybody would be creating stations on similar frequencies, and increasing power to drown out the others. It could lead to chaos without it, like eliminating traffic control signals or something, LOL.

I would suspect, if the Fairness Doctrine were in effect now, we may be sending someone other than BO to the White House. As evidenced by recent polls and reports, the MSM has shown it's ass when it comes to being "fair". How can the left feel so threatened when those asked simple questions about issues brought up during the campaign knew more about Palin's wardrobe than Obama's "spread the wealth" mindset? It seems to me the liberal media used it's license to get just what it wanted in spite of the perceived threat of RW radio. Their failure to present accurate and measured information on all the candidates was no accident. It's ironic and hypocritical to think the imposition of "fairness" on RW talk radio or FNC is going to improve the situation. If the left wants to complain about the agenda being pushed over federally licensed airwaves do they really think they could stand up to the scrutiny they want to focus on the opposition?

Rex,

The Fairness Doctrine didn't level the playing field for the left. It meant that opinionated snobs such as what we have on radio today didn't get any air time. It meant that we had unfiltered news on the radio instead of shock jock blather. And, it meant something even more important - professional journalism. You can hardly claim that radio or FNC features professional journalism, Rex. I don't think that the left or the right matters in the grand scheme of things. What matters is honesty. It is dishonest to promote the notion that Obama is socialist when everything about his life suggests the opposite. Yet, there were these radio hosts promoting this unsupported charge. Of course, the mainstream didn't report it as such because they are still trying to be journalists first. The suspension of the Fairness Doctrine meant that journalism would no longer be respected. The nation has suffered for this lack ever since. If anything, it dumbs down the nation.

"it dumbs down the nation."
If anything Joe the people who listen to these "opinionated snobs" are more informed than those who don't and we are better off for it.
And if you look at FNC they have a greater audience of declared independents and liberals
Than any other news channel, there must be something about it that they see that you don't.

Yes, Dan, they see bigotry and hatred of others. No, thank you.

No Joe,
They see a valuable news source, which you can not because you are blinded by bias.

John S. --

"If there wasn't that control, everybody would be creating stations on similar frequencies, and increasing power to drown out the others. It could lead to chaos without it, like eliminating traffic control signals or something, LOL."

Right. The old "chaos" canard; the most oft-used, time-tested sophism for rationalizing and justifying government control over whatever aspect of our lives they find it for their convenience to impose their will on us.

Firstly, I'm not even saying that the airwave frequencies shouldn't be owned and managed. Just that they shouldn't be owned and managed by a coercive monopoly; i.e., the government.

But in any case; do you think, perhaps, that most (I dunno, I'd say, about 99.999%?) of the people who put forth the time, energy, resources and capital, to broadcasting on radio airwaves, would want their broadcast to be heard clearly? If so, then doesn't it stand to reason, that they would refrain from broadcasting on an already-occupied frequency?

By your logic, we should have never developed something like language. I mean, no government ever legislated a language into existence, or "regulated" a language into rational development. Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that we should all be just shouting and grunting unintelligible noises at one another, with no semblance of order or rational communication?

Or could it be possible that humans are capable of coming to social order by spontaneous rational action, and it's not necessary to have one group of humans using coercive force to compel everyone to do what it is already in their own best interest to do anyway?

I think we agree on the government aspect Steve.

Joe- it's called free speech, the 1st amendment and all, even if one doesn't agree with it. I don't happen to listen to talk radio myself, and nobody has too. Newspapers, the net, magazines, etc. Where do you want to draw the line, just at radio?

Joe,
Your comment is a perfect example of the point I made. You address the issue of Obama being tagged as a socialist and ignore all the rest. Did you see the interviews with the Obama voters being asked simple questions about 'who is in control in Congress?' 'Who is Nancy Pelosi?', and so on? Were those answers a product of RW talk radio. If you are so concerned about legitimate journalism why aren't you questioning why so many people voted for Obama based on negative or deceptive reporting about the opposition than hard facts about their own candidate? In reality, what does it even matter when it seems a large number of voters get their "facts" from Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show? You wanna talk about "dumbing down"? I see it more as willful ignorance based on political ideology. To paraphrase Steve Bachman; just how much control do you want to hand over to the government?

Poor David must be furious that Vermont and Iowa (and, soon, New Hampshire) willl become "hell-hole" states.
Clearly, this is a very 'intelligent" man.
A clue for the clueless, whenever you have to refer to your alleged IQ score, you have lost your argument.

"...so many people voted for Obama based on negative or deceptive reporting about the opposition than hard facts about their own candidate?"
What a riot.
How could voters have possibly ignored the "thoughtful" issues of the Mcain-Palin "campaign" - whcih was nothing more than months during which igorant mobs yelled "Socialist', and "Terrorist" and chanted "USA".