Posted on 07/14/2007 2:15:23 PM PDT by Valin
Whenever I Start To Have Doubts… …about Minnesota’s senior senator, he seems - so far - to find a way to come through.
Via Ed, I see Norm beat Turban Durbin like a baby seal in a debate on the “Fairness” Doctrine.
By way of blocking a Coleman amendment that would have barred the government from regulating content of political broadcasting, Durbin replied:
Mr. Durbin: …But the senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the senator’s response if the marketplace fails to provide? What is the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? Since the people who are seeking the licenses are using America’s airwaves, does the government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a despair balanced approach to the –a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?
The correct answers are:
No
Do you, Senator Durbin, think the American people don’t have access to every possible point of view, right now? In fact, do you believe that Americans have access to fewer points of view than we had 20 years ago? Clearly, that is not the case.
Again, no.
Coleman responds:
Mr. Coleman: …The government does not — does not — have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That’s what the first amendment is about. It’s exactly what the first amendment is about. Government’s not supposed to be regulating content. And in a time in 1949 when you had three network TV stations, basically, when had you limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that, in fact, government needs to step in and ensure balance. But now we’re in 2007. We’re at a time where we’ve got 20,000, you know, opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information…John Kennedy stated, “we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” Mr. President, I’m not afraid of of — of the people. I’m not afraid of the people having access to the in information, ideas that they want to have access to. But I am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content…They should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn’t be thinking that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.
Kudos to Senator Coleman. He made a great argument for freedom.
Of course, the Democrats’ push to re-instate the “Fairness” doctrine isn’t about freedom. It’s not even about making sure people get “fair and balanced” information (since the market has clearly done that in spades).
It’s about shutting down dissent from the dominant liberal media establishment.
Supposedly, the hated Trent Lott has also come out strongly against “the fairness doctrine.”
Just what does he suppose is the "other side"?
Nothing we want to hear about I am sure ~ after all we are spending near a trillion dollars to get rid of its primary exponents.
yep
Norm Coleman added his No Fairness Doctrine amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill, but the Democrats kicked it out.
“When Coleman, R-Minn., tried to bring up his amendment Friday to a defense authorization bill, Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, objected. Levin’s office said he objected because the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction, and because it would have taken up time while the Senate was trying to debate Iraq.”
The reason the Democrats gave sounds reasonable, but they don’t follow this on other matters, so they are 2-faced. The Democrats and Levin snuck in an amendment on no “Hate Speech” (ie, can’t say negative things on homosexuals or minorities without facing prosecution) in the same bill and had no problem with that being outside military matters. I say both types of amendment should be debated on the merits and not snuck in another, necessary bill.
Just what does he suppose is the “other side”?
Obviously it’s the evil/ultra/extreemist/radical/fundamentalist/neo-con/theo-con’s who are out to cut down all the trees poison all the drinking water steal all the money steal your gran ma’s dog food (so they can feast on it themselves) throw her out into a snow bank (of course there are no snow banks thanks to the Bush Cheney Halliburton global warming machine (Pat. Pend.)
Everyone knows that.
The meaning of this sentence is less than obvious, at least to me.
I am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content…They should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn’t be thinking that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.Kudos to Senator Coleman. He made a great argument for freedom.
Exactly right!
Orwellian name for this unfair doctrine?...Why it's "THE Fairness Doctrine!" Of course!
In fact, it's "BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!"
Bring things back to where they were before? Why that's original intent! That's conservative, anti-progressive thought! We should all be pleased!
This reminds me of how we lost the term "RED STATE" as a bad name for Commies....or even that commies are bad (see Sicko/Cuba).
Those who tagged the previous debate as "AMNESTY" instead of "Immigration Reform" won that debate.
If we don't own the language here, then we don't win the debate. Dims know this.
Relax. Dims are cutting their own throats by even flirting with this ridiculous initiative. They are making parodies of themselves. They have absolutely no chance whatsoever of laying a glove on Rush, even if they control all branches of government. In the process of trying they are doing wonders to motivate the conservative base and paint themselves as wannabe tyrants. Stupid.
I’m curious. As this goes on, should I comment to my Senators that I will be at their offices with a pitchfork or a torch if this comes close to become a law.
Ah yes! The old, "don't worry, 8 years of Clinton will permanently turn the electorate against the dems" theory.
Yeah. That worked.
No. it's the old "don't worry, in today's political and media environment dems have absolutely no chance of silencing anybody and are only hurting themselves by trying" theory. Hardly the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.