Reigning in conservative talk radio

[local 12 proud]

The two bimbos were so busy cackling like a pair of barnyard hens they forgot Sen. Inhofe was there!

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

 

[delldude]

Yeah and there is a problem with freedom of speech....and now they wish to end it.


Hillary '08

 

[delldude]

Deny,deny,deny...

Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has complained about talk radio as of late, saying last week "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem" and “I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk-radio people who don't even know what's in the bill."

Well neither do the ones you and I elected either.

 

[KCFlyer]

Yeah and there is a problem with freedom of speech....and now they wish to end it.
Hillary '08

Hmmm...much as Bush protected it by setting up "protest zones" blocks, if not miles. from a presidential event. Or...you can't come in here because of the saying on your t-shirt...that's not ending free speech. Or how about labeling any dissent of your war as "emboldening the enemy".

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Hmmm...much as Bush protected it by setting up "protest zones" blocks, if not miles. from a presidential event.

KC,

This is not just a "Bush" thing. This type of thing has been legally allowed since atleast the 1940's. For decades reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions have been valid even though they directly limit oral or written expression. And every state and president since then has engaged in this type of limitation.

The government is within the law as long as it is not attempting to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others. So... Bush is OK as long as he isn't putting all anti-war protestors miles away from an event and then putting all the anti-Clinton protestors at the entrance of the same event.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

I would lay down my life, to defend Conservative talk radio, especially CTR's two biggest "tub thumpers", Limbaugh, and Hannity.

Those two A$$ HOLES are helping the Democrats(every day) in ways you can NOT even Imagine.

With there VENOM, and BILE that they spew daily, they convert 2 people AGAINST them, for every MORON, that they convert.

I listen daily to them, and do you know why ??
It's like stealing the opposing teams "playbook".

Here in NH. is THE MOST Conservative daily newspaper(The UNION LEADER). The FOOLS at the "UL"(about 10 years back), were SUCCESSFUL in driving moderate republicans over, to vote FOR NH's FIRST Democratic Female Governor.
The "UL" GAME PLAN, blew up in there faces.
As I seriously DEFEND Limbaugh, and Hannity, you need to be asking yourselves WHY ??........."THINK ABOUT IT"

NH/BB's

 

[wnbubbleboy]

I would lay down my life, to defend Conservative talk radio, especially CTR's two biggest "tub thumpers", Limbaugh, and Hannity.

Those two A$$ HOLES are helping the Democrats(every day) in ways you can NOT even Imagine.

With there VENOM, and BILE that they spew daily, they convert 2 people AGAINST them, for every MORON, that they convert.

I listen daily to them, and do you know why ??
It's like stealing the opposing teams "playbook".

Here in NH. is THE MOST Conservative daily newspaper(The UNION LEADER). The FOOLS at the "UL"(about 10 years back), were SUCCESSFUL in driving moderate republicans over, to vote FOR NH's FIRST Democratic Female Governor.
The "UL" GAME PLAN, blew up in there faces.
As I seriously DEFEND Limbaugh, and Hannity, you need to be asking yourselves WHY ??........."THINK ABOUT IT"

NH/BB's

Well you and I agree about the protection of speech I don't listen Hannity or Rush.

I listen to Mark Levin and Mike Savage and the Lovely Laura Ingram. With that being said, I also listen to Howard Stern and Alan Combs.

I enjoy them all equally but buying any partly line is pure foolishness. I listen for information and investigate and contact my representatives when necessary.

No pawn just a responsible citizen.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Well, joining us now, two key senators, the number two Republican, Trent Lott, and one of the Democratic leaders, Dianne Feinstein.

And, Senators, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: Thank you very much.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, R-MISS.: Glad to be back, Chris.

WALLACE: Let's start with the controversy over talk radio, because, Senator Lott, you stirred up quite a hornet's nest this week when you said this, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."

And here was the reaction from some conservative talk show hosts.



RUSH LIMBAUGH: Talk radio is the American voter. That's what bothers Trent Lott.

MICHAEL SAVAGE: Trent Lott saying today that talk radio is running America and we have to deal with that problem is gangsterism.

WALLACE: Senator, your response?

LOTT: Dianne and I were just talking about that. One of the mistakes that we have made many times on legislation is it's introduced, it comes out of committee, we bring it to the floor. We never bother to explain what we're trying to do and what is in it.

I think that was the mistake that was made with immigration. Talk radio defined it without us explaining that there were reasons for it and the good things that were in it.

So the onus is not on them, it's on us to do a better job of communicating what we're trying to do.

And I just want to make — you know, look, I've been defended by talk radio many times and I will support their right to tell their side of the story, right, left or the middle, forever.

I don't think this fairness doctrine that would try to require that there be X amount on both sides is fair. So you know, it's caused quite a stir, but, you know, it goes with the territory.

WALLACE: But, Senator, I'm not going to let you off the hook quite that easily. Take a look at this. You said this also last week. "I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk radio people who don't even know what's in the bill."

Now, I talked to some of the talk radio people, and they say you make it sound like they're leading around their listeners like a bunch of sheep. They say look, they know what's in the bill, their listeners know what's in the bill, and they don't like it.

LOTT: Well, let me tell you why I said that. As a matter of fact, I do talk radio in my own state in particular, but others, and I'm sure Dianne does, too.

I was doing one interview, and the talk radio host said, to his credit, "What are you trying to do here?" And I explained that we were trying to improve a bad situation. And that's a summation of it.

Then he said, "Well, tell me four things in this bill that you think are significantly better than the current law." So I ticked them off. He said, "That's in there?" I said, "Yeah."

See, that's the point. It's not that they're maliciously trying to, you know, distort it. And this is a complicated bill with a lot of moving parts. Some of it I don't like.

You know, I'm not committed to voting for the final product. The wheels may come off. But I am committed to trying. That's what the United States Senate should be trying to do...


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286442,00.html

 

[delldude]

Looking on the bright side....the Supremes showed they lean on the first amendment side with a ruling on election ads.I think if it comes down to it,once again the fairness doctrine will fall to the first amendment if it gets that far.
Of course if these actions need stopped,its up to all to contact their respective Congress/Senate.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Looking on the bright side....the Supremes showed they lean on the first amendment side with a ruling on election ads.I think if it comes down to it,once again the fairness doctrine will fall to the first amendment if it gets that far.
Of course if these actions need stopped,its up to all to contact their respective Congress/Senate.

Are you sure about the the Supremes leaning on the first amendment side???

There is great irony here. In the campaign finance decision that you refer to, Justice Roberts sanctimoniously stated that “the court should give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship.â€

Yet, on the very same day, and on a self-admitted "close case," Justice Roberts decided to give the benefit to CENSORSHIP. (no benefit of the doubt there).

The dissent is illuminating:

“. . . The current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting —however inarticulately — that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely.

. . . In the national debate about a serious issue, it is the expression of the minority’s viewpoint that most demands the protection of the First Amendment. Whatever the better policy may be, a full and frank discussion of the costs and benefits of the attempt to prohibit the use of marijuana is far wiser than suppression of speech because it is unpopular."

 

[delldude]

Same goes at work....try and exercise 1st A rights at work.No surprise here.

 

[Garfield1966]

Different rules apply to a work environment. In public, I can walk around with a T-shirt stating "X" is a B!TCH. That shirt would not be appropriate in a work environment and nor should it be. A private company has the right to abridge certain right (speech being one of them) with in reason. I can't have a radio blaring, I have to abide by a certain dress code, I cannot insult my co-workers …etc.

 

[delldude]

Different rules apply to a work environment. In public, I can walk around with a T-shirt stating "X" is a B!TCH. That shirt would not be appropriate in a work environment and nor should it be. A private company has the right to abridge certain right (speech being one of them) with in reason. I can't have a radio blaring, I have to abide by a certain dress code, I cannot insult my co-workers …etc.

Just like a school district...thank you for backing up my post.

 

[Garfield1966]

Just like a school district...thank you for backing up my post.

What are you talking about? School district should also have certain controls as well but I did not see where you referred to one.

 

[delldude]

It goes without saying.... institutions are responsible for educating their students and not creating a political forum just like an employer doesn't want on his time.