[tomder55]

Oakland California : Some public workers produced a flier in which they said "marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values." This was treated as "hate speech" by the city government after another city employee, who is a lesbian, said she "felt threatened" by the sentiment expressed. They were fired . The 9th Circus Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city . Defending marriage is now a crime for city workers who in turn are subjected to advertisements for "Coming out day " over the city PA system.

Washington DC : A think tank funded by George Soros and headed by Clintonoid John Podesta came out with a report that noted 91% of talk radio programing is conservative ;obviously a completely intolerable exercise of free speech. It's not that liberal talk radio hasn't been tried . A lot of money was pumped into Air America .A relatively successful and articulate liberal entertainer;Al Franken was recruited to chair the key time slot . Instead of putting the apparent failure where it lay ;that conservative talk show hosts just do a better job entertaining their audience ;Podesta's conclusion is that the reason for the imbalance is "multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system." The fact is that liberal talk radio is failing because there is a very small audience for the product . And why should that be a surprise ? The 3 major television networks and many of the cable televison networks ;as well as most news publications ,and PBS /NPR are dominated by liberal thought. There are alternatives for a liberal to go to .

Podesta concluded that new regulations to restrict conservatives and subsidize liberals is what is needed . Over the weekend Senator Diane Feinstein told Chris Wallace that she is looking into resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine for US broadcasters (this wouldn't cover the press because there are additional Constitutional guarantees of free press... why it doesn't extend into the broadcast realm is beyond me. )Asked if she supported a return of the doctrine, an FCC rule that required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues, she said "I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact. I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people". She evidently is talking about the days when Walter Cronkite would proclaim at the end of his broadcasts : "And that's the way it is" . Hugo Chavez is smiling .



The Supreme Court : SCOTUS made 2 rulings about free speech yesterday. They got one of them right and another wrong. Joseph Frederick decided to test free speech at High School by unfurling a ridiculous sign outside of school grounds that said : Bong Hits for Jesus . The school Principle confiscated the sign and suspended Frederick from school for 10 days .In a five-three decision, the Supreme Court found that schools "may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use." Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion to the ruling saying that he would not uphold a public school's decision to censor student speech related to the drug war that was political in nature. So in other words if Frederick had unfurled a banner that said Legalize Bong Hits for Jesus . The banner would've then fallen into the realm of protected political speech . This ruling is too nuanced for my liking.

The second ruling that was a triumph for free speech was their reversal of key aspects of the McCain Feingold law. "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. Their decision strikes down the part of the law that restricted an add that said something like "call Senator Foghorn to let him know you oppose a bridge to no-where" immediately before an election. Advocacy groups from all sides of the spectrum should be please with this decision.

[speechlesstx]

Oakland California : Some public workers produced a flier in which they said "marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values."

Good ol' hate speech laws. They should have known that would never 'fly' in the bay area. I find it extremely curious that all those liberal advocates of free speech are sponsoring so many speech codes.

Washington DC : A think tank funded by George Soros and headed by Clintonoid John Podesta came out with a report that noted 91% of talk radio programing is conservative ;obviously a completely intolerable exercise of free speech.

I guess changing the channel is out of the question. I wonder if they'd advocate a fairness doctrine for the print news. It isn't enough that the majority of newspapers, network news - even the entertainment programming we have available - are dominated by a liberal philosophy, they must have it all. Especially since they can't win the share they feel entitled to in the free market. It just gets under their skin that people like O'Reilly and Rush beat the pants off all comers in the ratings game.

That "Bong Hits for Jesus" ruling seems confusing. It seems they're all saying the principal was within her rights, or at least not liable for damages - and they all seem to agree the rights of students in school are not equal with the rights of adults and that deterring drug use is extremely important. I actually agree with the dissent in that the banner did not encourage drug use so what's the big deal? It should never have made it to SCOTUS.

They were dead on for the last ruling you mentioned.

[tomder55]

An article I read today praised the Roberts incremental ways . Their ruling on both the Bong hits... case and the McCain-Feingold reversal means that more cases of a similar nature will need to be heard to set precedence . Since most of the justices agreed that political free speech is still a student's right then it is a leap to conclude that the Bong hits... banner was not political speech . A student could now get in trouble for a 'smoke pot ' tee shirt and the student in the next seat could have no trouble with a 'legalize pot 'tee shirt.

[ebaines]

Oakland California : Some public workers produced a flier in which they said "marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values." This was treated as "hate speech" by the city government after another city employee, who is a lesbian, said she "felt threatened" by the sentiment expressed. They were fired . The 9th Circus Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city . Defending marriage is now a crime for city workers who in turn are subjected to advertisements for "Coming out day " over the city PA system.

Can you please provide a reference for this incident? It sounds like an urban legend - there have been false emails circulating about a supposed case that sounds an awful lot like this. In reality the case was about employees posting anti-homosexual messages on the bulletin board at work. Management took down a notice posted by an employee after another employee complained. The persons who posted it then filed a law suit against the company, claiming their free speech rights had been violated. The court sided with the company, saying that employees do not have a right to communicate their political views to their office mates, and that employers have an interest in avoiding situations that may distract employees from their jobs. It had nothing to do with hate speech, or establishing their usage as a "crime." No one was fired.

See the Snopes site for reference material for this: Urban Legends Reference Pages: A Petition to Congress in Defense of Religious Freedom

[speechlesstx]

An article I read today praised the Roberts incremental ways . Their ruling on both the Bong hits ...case and the McCain-Feingold reversal means that more cases of a simular nature will need to be heard to set precedence . Since most of the justices agreed that political free speech is still a student's right then it is a leap to conclude that the Bong hits... banner was not political speech . A student could now get in trouble for a 'smoke pot ' tee shirt and the student in the next seat could have no trouble with a 'legalize pot 'tee shirt.

Well there's free speech, hate speech, PC speech, we might as well add "properly nuanced political speech."

[tomder55]

I did err when I wrote they were fired . They were censored and their fliers destroyed .

Here is an editorial by George Will

courant.com | Intolerance Of Family Values

Here is what the women of the "Good News Employee Association " filed in response to the Supreme court.

http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/46.pdf



Here is a copy of the 9th Circuis Court's decision

http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/45.pdf

http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/45.pdf

[excon]

The fact is that liberal talk radio is failing because there is a very small audience for the product . And why should that be a surprise ?

Hello tom:

Your facts are right, but I doubt your conclusion. When produced well, with entertaining hosts, liberal talk radio is quite successful. Given your logic, I suppose you could conclude that there isn't a market for an IPhone because nobody owns one. I don't think that's so.

I agree with your conclusion regarding bong hits. But... this decision should have been expected. Certainly, free speech rights WILL be curtailed under this Court. That's not surprising.. Didn't YOU support Rogers and Scalito?? I think you did.

excon

[tomder55]

When produced well, with entertaining hosts, liberal talk radio is quite successful.

Which one ? Al Franken was a bust .Randi Rhodes barely keeps above water . Allen Colmes (who is actually pretty good ) doesn't get audience support . Here in NY ;the flagship station WLIB booted Air America out so they could play a local black talk format . They eventually found a station at the fringe of the dial (WWRL 1600 )that I can only pick up when the weather is right . I do not even think that they make the Arbitron charts. The fact is that if liberal talk radio had a market it would be succeeding in NYC .

I suppose you could conclude that there isn't a market for an IPhone because nobody owns one.

Face the facts ; with as much money as was invested into Air America ,if they had a market they would be an astounding success. If Steve Job were to pump a lot of money into the I phone and the market place did not buy it would he continue to market it ?

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I don't know nuthin from arbitron... I don't care. Badly run business's, even if they have a good product, still fail. It doesn't mean there isn't a market for the product. If I were to start a radio company, I would put a RADIO guy in charge – not a comedian. Of course, liberals aren't good at business…

Indeed, Al Franken isn't even a very good comic, In my opinion, and he sucked at radio. THAT doesn't mean his product isn't viable, even if HE is unable to disseminate it. That Garofolo chick is a joke. Randi Rhodes is rude and crude. She's trying to out name call or out yell conservative talk radio. It's an understandable business model. After all, right wing talk radio has been based on that for years and its kicking butt.

However, intellectuals and progressives want their talk radio to be above the fray. People like Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz and Rachael Maddow ARE succeeding at Air America. Maybe management caught on. I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't diminish the product.

Keith Olberman is kicking butt at MSNBC. He's the only host on TV saying the stuff he does. Somebody is listening. I for sure am.

excon

PS> For what it's worth. Back in '89 when I first heard Rush. I thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, since I found out he's a hypocrite - he's toast.

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

When produced well, with entertaining hosts, liberal talk radio is quite successful.

Since when? Can you name a single case of liberal talk radio that has been as successful in the ratings as conservative talk radio? Airhead America failed not because of low production values or lack of financial support, but because there was no audience. NPR has some very high production values, but fails to generate the ratings of conservative talk radio.

The fact is that with CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, The NY Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, etc. there are plenty of outlets for liberal views. But there are very few such outlets for conservative views. It's pretty much the NY Post, conservative talk radio and the conservative internet sites. So there is a glut on liberal media and a shortage of conservative media. That's a huge reason that so many people flock to conservative talk radio. If approximately 50% of the country is conservative, but only 15-20% of media outlets are conservative (and that's probably a high estimate), the ones that exist will garner a huge audience in comparison to their liberal counterparts since there are so few of them. Its simple supply and demand... Economics 101.

By the way, which side has done more to curtail free speech rights, liberals or conservatives? Liberals, not conservatives, banned the use of the Ten Commandments statue on the grounds of a courthouse. Liberals, not conservatives, have banned the use of Christmas trees in schools and parks. Liberals, not conservatives (and yes, McCain is a liberal) banned political advertisement before an election. Liberals, not conservatives banned signs regarding the sanctity of marriage from government offices. And liberals, not conservatives, are trying to reinstate the so-called "fairness doctrine" in radio.

It seems to me that the term "liberal" no longer means liberating people's rights, but rather the curtailing of free speech and other rights. Sure, they want to legalize drugs and abortions and anything else they happen to agree with. But they wish to curtail anything they disagree with, like guns, religious expression in public, political opinions that differ from theirs. Theirs seems to be the more dangerous stance in terms of curtailing freedom than the conservative stance which is most often simply to maintain what we already have on most issues or else go back to what existed when this country was founded.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Do you think that it should be mandatory for Olberman to provide equal time to his one sided commentary driven program ? I don't .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Like... should there be a law?? Elliot would be aghast at such a liberal notion.

excon

[tomder55]

Excon

However, intellectuals and progressives want their talk radio to be above the fray. People like Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz and Rachael Maddow ARE succeeding at Air America. Maybe management caught on. I don't know. I don’t care. It doesn’t diminish the product.

Mario Cuomo tried a stint as a talk show host He flopped .He gave this commentary :Conservatives "write their messages with crayons," ...."We use fine-point quills."

There are actually a few reasons liberal talk radio is a ratings(the only indicator that matters in the market) flop .

1. As Mario and you point out ;liberals are egg heads and want a more intellectual product. Since Air America tried to duplicate the more down to earth and entertaining conservative format it was doomed to failure . Libs already have NPR (subsidized by my taxes ) for the egghead format. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication pointed out that "The parody, the asides, the self-effacing humor, the bluster are all part of the packaging that makes the political message palatable."

2. The Lib market is fragmented . As I pointed out . Black libs want to listen to African-American radio .Hispanic libs prefer Hispanic radio . That leaves a smaller pool of clients to attract .

3. As Elliot pointed out there is a wealth of alternatives for Liberals . You listen to Keith Olberman (or as I like to call him... Howard Beale ) but if he wasn't available there are plenty other options .

They see Conservative radio as a threat because they effectively motivate their audience to participate in the political process . That is why they want to muzzle it .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I think we've come upon it. Liberals read. Right wingers don't. You guys are the lone exceptions.

Oh yeah, before I forget, right wingers don't have a sense of humor either. I forgot to mention Jon Stewart? How do you explain him? He's... a liberal.

By the way, isn't there an attempt at being funny at Fox Noise, that is failing badly? I think there is. Guess there's no market for humor, is there?

excon

[tomder55]

Can't answer for anyone else. I think Steart and Colbert are a riot. Haven't watchd the FOX show... it airs too late here.

By the way... saw Stewart perform for the cadets at West Point last year . He changes his tone a little when he is in front of the troops .

[ebaines]

Over the weekend Senator Diane Feinstein told Chris Wallace that she is looking into resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine for US broadcasters (this wouldn't cover the press because there are additional Constitutional guarantees of free press....why it doesn't extend into the broadcast realm is beyond me. ) ... She evidently is talking about the days when Walter Cronkite would proclaim at the end of his broadcasts : "And that's the way it is" . Hugo Chavez is smiling.

Since no one has mentioned this already - there is a fundamental difference between the printed press (including electronic forums such as internet web sites and blogs) and broadcast media. Presumably anyone can start up their own newspaper, magazine, web site, blog, etc. so there is no need for a "fairness doctrine" in the press. If there's a demand for a particular point of view, someone will fill it with a new publication. But for broadcast media, the rights to the airwaves are controlled by the FCC, since there is a limited amount of bandwidth available over the air, and consequently there is no mechanism for a different point of view to be heard. The fairness doctrine was implemented to try to ensure that the public's airwaves were not co-opted by one side or another. From the Supreme Court decision that affirmed its Constitutionality:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... 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."

And by the way, while you make it sound like the fairness doctrine was some sort of liberal scheme, it had been a basic rule of the FCC ever since they started regulating airwaves, and lasted through democrat and republican administrations up until 1987. As I recall at the time most conservatives were screaming that the liberals had taken over the airwaves (think Sam Donaldson on ABC, Dan Rather/Mike Wallace/ and yes, Cronkite, on CBS, etc), and so the conservatives were all for it. You think Chavez would be smiling? So would David Duke and the Aryan Nation!

I personally am against trying to re-implement the fairness doctrine - it's way too problematic (example - if you show an interview with Hilary Clinton does that mean you are required to do interviews with all the other Dems, and also all the other Republicans, socialists, communists, Ku Klux Klan, anarchists, etc etc etc?). And it is an unfair extra burden for the broadcast businesses, who are competing with print, cable, satellite, and electronic media that are not be required to implement a fairness doctrine. Besides, I would hate to have lose access to all those old Arnold Schwarzenneger movies!

[tomder55]

I did not mean to imply it is a liberal scheme .It is in fact illiberal . The only ones today who are advocating it is Sen. Feinstein ,Sen. Durbin ,and Rep. Dennis Kuchinich (and allegedly Sen. Clinton and Boxer according to Sen. Inhofe who claims to have over-heard them talking about it as a legislative solution to conservative talk radio TheHill.com - GOP preps for talk radio confrontation)

FYI . Morris says that it would not take a legislative move to reinstate it . He says that if Evita Clinton were to become President she could appoint a FCC chair who favors it and it would be up to the FCC board to reinstate . I don't know if that is true or not ;but either way it is only the Democrats who are talking it up.

[tomder55]

Update : John Kerry has also joined the growing chorus

YouTube - KERRY FOR FAIRNESS DOCTRINE; CORRECT 'IMBALANCE'

[ebaines]

FYI . Morris says that it would not take a legislative move to reinstate it . He says that if Evita Clinton were to become President she could appoint a FCC chair who favors it and it would be up to the FCC board to reinstate . I don't know if that is true or not ;but either way it is only the Democrats who are talking it up.

True. The fairness doctrine was FCC policy, and it was the FCC in the 1980's who decided to kill it.

BTW, there have been other attempts by congress to put the fairness doctrine into law: from Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

In the spring of 1987, Congress had attempted to contest the FCC vote and restore the Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

[speechlesstx]

I think we've come upon it. Liberals read. Right wingers don't. You guys are the lone exceptions.

LOL, I guess National Review, FrontPage and others are only read by Libs wanting to know what we're up to, eh?

Oh yeah, before I forget, right wingers don't have a sense of humor either. I forgot to mention Jon Stewart? How do you explain him? He's... a liberal.

There are a few funny liberals, even Al Franken used to be funny, but most are just too angry to be funny. I don't know that he's ever identified himself as 'conservative' - but I imagine he is - Jeff Allen is probably the funniest standup comedian I've seen since Robin Williams, and it's all clean.

By the way, isn't there an attempt at being funny at Fox Noise, that is failing badly? I think there is. Guess there's no market for humor, is there?

I got to admit I watched it - one time - it was horrible.

And by the way ex, I bet it didn't take much encouragement for you take "a bonk hit for Jesus."