The Fairness Doctrine.

[opebo]

Yes.  Without this doctrine media will naturally represent only the views of the owners, who will of course be almost uniformly right-wing.

[opebo]

No.  The role of the FCC should be limited to prevention of interference (a property/interstate commerce issue).  Regulation of transmitters should be a state/local issue, as it really only concerns local zoning.  Any effort by the FCC to regulate content beyond the usual limits on public speech is clearly a First Amendment violation.

Not at all, Blue Rectangle.  What these regulations do is ensure that speech is available to the non-rich as well as the rich.  They increase and distribute the right to speak, they do not limit free speech.

[opebo]

No, because I'm not a communist who wants government regulating view points.

The Fairness Doctrine doesn't regulate viewpoints, A18, it merely ensures that persons who are not rich are allowed to speak.  In normal capitalism only the very wealthy are allowed to speak, and commoners are competely barred from speech.

[opebo]

The speech is commercial -- it is targeted to an audience.

So?  That has no bearing on who is allowed to speak in a capitalist society - only persons with large amounts of money.

[opebo]

The speech that interests people will be heard.

No, actually the speech that interests people with money will be heard, under capitalist censorship.

[opebo]

So anyone with a TV or radio.

No, persons who may buy what advertisers are selling.  So people who are either 1) extremely poor, or 2) members of very small niche groups will not be allowed to speak.

Also any opinions which will tend to either offend or otherwise reduce the listenership of the majority will be censored.

[opebo]

No.  The role of the FCC should be limited to prevention of interference (a property/interstate commerce issue).  Regulation of transmitters should be a state/local issue, as it really only concerns local zoning.  Any effort by the FCC to regulate content beyond the usual limits on public speech is clearly a First Amendment violation.

Not at all, Blue Rectangle.  What these regulations do is ensure that speech is available to the non-rich as well as the rich.  They increase and distribute the right to speak, they do not limit free speech.

Wow.  I really didn't think you'd support a government agency that demands that the word "tits" can't be said on TV.

I'm all for allowing the word tits, as you may well imagine.  I am not, however, for a complete lack of protection of the first amendment rights of the working class.