not necessarily the same, but certainly related: Obama Names Hollywood-Friendly Lawyers to Top Justice Posts [rquoter] Authored by Mark Hefflinger on February 5, 2009 - 10:07am. San Francisco - The Obama administration has chosen as its associate deputy attorney general Donald Verrilli, a copyright litigator who has represented the interests of the record labels against Grokster and alleged file-swapper Jammie Thomas, and also Viacom in its $1 billion claim against Google, CNET News.com reported. The appointment follows a string of industry-friendly hires that includes a favored RIAA lawyer, Tom Perrelli, who was named associate attorney general, and David Ogden, who defended copyright term extensions and was named deputy attorney general.[/rquoter]
You're being completely ridiculous. My right to due process is more important than Rush Limbaugh's right to lie on the public airwaves unchecked. He's free to go to satellite and say whatever he wants just like everyone else.
I fixed your text for you.... For the record it doesn't come as a surprise that the Dems are always the ones coming out with this type of talk. And the left owns the mainstream media news outlets. Talk radio is so big because its the conservatives who started it and there is a majority of people in this country who are of that mindset.
This is actually the biggest load of crap I have read in quite some time. If you really think that government mandating what viewpoints media airs is what the First Amendment is all about, then you do not have the first clue about what the Constitution means. Here's a primer... The Framers of the Constitution were afraid of an overreaching government. After all, they were living under an oppressive King. So they enacted provisions like the First Amendment that are directed toward government. "Congress shall enact no law..." It says and means NOTHING toward private entities that own the press or any other media outlet. Free speech implies the right to put on the airwaves whatever viewpoint you want free of government intervention. Nice try at bastardizing the Constitution though.
Wow, even a lawyer misses the key legal issue at stake here that nobody in this thread has recognized.... Red Lion....
Its being ignored because you choose your own interpretation. Im sure Refman completely understands ... he understands how dangerous it is to set laws into motion. Fairness Doctrine was not so much about regulation as much as the liberals want it to be. It was about monopolizing a scare media outlet. When Rush or anyone else decides to monopolize every band on the radio, then feel free to drag out the Fairness doctrine. In the mean time, quit trying to piss all over the first amendment, or else Moon will no longer be able to talk about his legalization of drugs.
LOL - how am I pissing all over the first amendment? Please survey my posts in this thread and let me know. I don't believe I ever expressed a position on the underlying issue (though I have in the past...search function....) I'm just commenting on how any lawyer worth his salt would realize that this discussion is incredibly deficient insofar as none of the posters in this thread have realized what courts have - rightly or wrongly - established as a key legal distinction in this instance. Any discussion then of "the Framers" is thus premature and incomplete without application to the proper context now shut up lest I own again....
You must be confused. The media is already heavily censored. Larry Flynt has been fighting it for ages. A wardrobe malfunction during the Superbowl wouldn't even be worth a mention in other countries.
I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court envisioned talk radio when they ruled in 1969. I also seriously doubt that any of the conservative "entertainers" (Rush et al) would have a problem allowing the objects of their attacks to appear on air to speak and then get (rightly or wrongly) roasted. Additionally, what we are talking about is easily distinguished. In 1969, and as the Court pointed out, part of their rationale was the scarcity of media airwaves and the inability of opposing viewpoints to gain access without government assistance. In 2009, there are seemingly an endless supply of airwaves and nobody will make the argument that either side of the political aisle lacks the financial ability to purchase airtime. Obama even had his own 24/7 channel on Dish Network. The Fairness Doctrine would have shut that down. While USSC rulings are the law of the land, it is important to look at it from a realistic stance along with the rationale for their rulings. The rationale here simply no longer exists.
