Not "the public" - it's for "the children" ;) Just ask the hildabeast...

" Ummmm... I don't like tossing around the word "fascist" lightly, but aren't we entering a real danger area when partisan government officials are taking it upon themselves to limit free speech? "--- Ace

In a word ---- YES !!!
Why can these creatures say outlandish things such as this and no-one in the MEDIA even comments?
How about GWB agrees with these sentiments and decides to impose his version of reality on ALL THE MEDIA EXCEPT FOX? Hey that sounds not half bad when you think about it.

I hate to think democrats were this despicable back when I voted for democrats. These democrat lawmakers smell really bad. Really, really bad.

I'd love to come up with some eloquent argument in Fox's defense, but I really can't top this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Hey, the Weekly World News publishes disinformation, and some really deluded people believe it. No one is proposing to shut it down. Why should Fox be regulated?

"they're always acting on behalf of the masses"

When they aren't acting for "The Children"(TM).

Thankyou for that Brian B...none of us can top it either.

BrianB, I hate to have to criticize you on your command of the law, here, but I think you've missed something.

In the 2002 Supreme Court case of Democrats v. Reality, 803 U.S. 961, a sharply divided court held that "the First Amendment's guarantee of Congressional non-interference with the press, so highly valued by the framers, was written for the purpose of ensuring a robust and vigorous political discourse. But in the ensuing centuries since the founding, we think it manifestly clear that vigorous political discourse is no longer a desireable policy, as the temptation to misuse is grows ever stronger. We recognize that we are breaking from the literal text of the Constitution, but we do so in order that we might better preserve it from those who would actually read the words - and in so doing, hamper the progress of liberty."

I will assume that your mistaken assumption that the First Amendment had not been struck down as unconstitutional is because you haven't been to a liberal law school. Not you fault, of course.

Ah, that was a good day for the Democrats.

The media has sold its soul to the Democrats, and the Dems have sold theirs to the media. They will use and defend each other to the death of one or both.

The trouble with freedom is, people use it.

Wait a minute! You mean it is acceptable to have to sit here mum and watch some a-hole make a picture of the Virgin Mary smothered in dung for freedom of speech, some sanctimonious reporter clam up to protect his source for freedom of the press, (the good kind) hear sermon after sermon of hate speech directed at everything under the sun for freedom of religion, but if someone presents a point of view that runs askew of yours and you are a legislator it is perfectly acceptable to invoke change through "legislative means?" That is too much to swallow. These guys display too much hubris. Where are the lightning bolts?

Fleshlight is the ultimate male sex toy. it feels just like the real thing.

Anti-Aging Pages is a definite guide to supplements that have been proposed to slow and or reverse human aging.

antiaging | hgh | human growth hormone | hgh spray | anti aging