Can you say on air "Hollywood is grabbing its ankles" for your special friend?

I'll try.

Thanks!

Chat with me and Laura and John on AIM!

Room # chat15344100240932370412

or AIM "Cancer Marney" (no quotes) for an invite.

Who's John?

I prefer to be addressed as "His Appalling Majesty Dread John Sharkey the Undying," but AIM doesn't give me enough characters in my screen name.

I'm John... ya know "John from Greenville"

Is Ace going to talk about me? Oh I do hope so.

They sound like they are under water.

They sound like they are under water. Now better

Veagra??

I'm trying to download Google Video Player and listen at the same time with dial-up. Not working so well. Hi ACEY POO!

Dial-up?? I thought ya'll made the big bucks

Ace needs a Bo Deedle type character on his show. I'll be Bo.

And Feisty can be the cackling ho who giggles and agrees with everything Ace says.

Hey, you extended the Ace-Karol preguest bit.

Good. Finally.

Thanks Bart. If I disagree, don't worry, I'll be calling. First I have to hear the stream.

[Google Video Player is done, maybe it'll work now]

Boner!
Ace said boner.

I guess that's as close as I'll get to Ace talking about me.

Would the New York Times Editorial Board count as a "political committee", and be subject to federal regulation, if group blogs do?

Talk radio and blogs have a forum for open discussion where anyone can call or write in (as long as they're polite about it); that should be good enough for "fairness."

Hey, Bart, I got in "grabbing his ankles"... I think, it might have been bleeped out.

I heard it, and if I could hear it, ANYONE could hear it.

I didn't catch it, John.

Ace drops the f-bomb for Allah!

Good one, Ace!

Who do you think you are, Howard Stern?

Where's the fucking delay switch!!

Oy!

Ace, I wish I knew how to quit you.

Well fuc--- great. There goes the show.

Thanks, Ace.

Dude, there's no FCC here. They can say whatever they want, so long as Righttalk lets 'em.

Good interview.

Ace, man, I know you like Cheney and all but do you have emulate him by dropping the F-bomb? Save it for the Senate floor.

Like the show, by the way.

And on the radio he sounds like such a nice young man ...

The public owns the public airwaves. What Brian Anderson doesn't seem to understand is that the gov't leases OUR airwaves to private groups. The Fairness Doctrine -- all but vanished now -- was to put some responsibility with the contract.

Here's a metaphor for you: you get to use the movie theater, but you can't shout FIRE during the film. And you can't make up a story about a fire and sell it as news.

The republican push has been to remove any sense of public responsibility or social contract. You get the movie theatre, and you can create all kinds of public havoc.

One of the many ironies here is that the right has sought to put some kinds of limits on bloggers AS JOURNALISTS, while carefully ignoring the abuses by Rush and O'Reilly (for example).

Weak. Very weak.

How are Air America's ratings? Hmmmm? Negligible? Fight the Power!!

Weak. Very weak.

My assessment of Anderson's piece too. Campaign-finance reform is the main threat to rightwing rabble-rousing?

Absurd.

The piece seems a cheap dodge to avoid noticing the role money plays in current politics.

The problem a lot of left wingers make in regards to "unfair" talk radio is that Rush and others don't make the decisions as to who is popular. The public decides that. The only reason the right has dominated talk radio is because people prefer right wing talk show hosts. Reinstating the fairness doctrine or some other kind of fascist bullshit in its place won't change the fact that people simply aren't choosing to listen to left wing radio. They prefer the righties.

Now, show me the proof that Rush, Hannity, et al have developed some kind of mind control ray that forces people to listen to them whether they like it or not and I'll reconsider. I think people consciously chose Rush over Air America.

From The City article:

Studies galore have found little or no significant influence of campaign contributions on legislators’ votes.

Well, somebody better tell k street quick that corporate doners aren't getting anything for their "contributions."

and, then, this:

The ultimate pipe dream of the reformers is a rigidly egalitarian society, where government makes sure that every individual’s influence over politics is exactly the same, regardless of his wealth. Scrutinize the pronouncements of campaign-finance reform groups like the Pew-backed Democracy 21, and you’ll see how the meaning of “corruption” morphs into “inequality of influence” in this sense. This notion of corruption—really a Marxoid opposition to inequality of wealth—would have horrified the Founding Fathers, who believed in private property with its attendant inequalities, and who trusted to the clash of factions to ensure that none oppressed the others.

Me thinks the writer has not read Madison, nor understands at all "civic republicanism."

Little brothers, if you read shit like this, you'll never know anything.

"Fairness Doctrine" ... the very term sounds frightening, in the same way that 1984's "Ministry of Love" and "Ministry of Truth" were frightening.

Also, tubino, I agree that broadcasters are bound by "fiduciary trust" and lack of FCC enforcement of the fairness doctrine has produced the sort of trash heard on the airwaves. But, the scarcity rationale for fairness is inapplicable to new media.

Question is: how to force and justify a kind of fairness doctrine for cyberspace. required linking to opposing websites might be the answer.

How are Air America's ratings? Hmmmm? Negligible? Fight the Power!!

There you go. The right controls the airwaves now. But even the MSM supports the GOP agenda, day in and day out. They would rather put on an update on Natalee Holloway than give Al Gore a few minutes. But the threats to our liberties are not from some campaign finance reform initiative, but from the very practice Gore was criticizing. His response to the WH response to his speech deserves airtime. And NO, this isn't threadjacking. We're talking about control of the means of communication (airwaves, phone lines), and the executive branch assertion of complete authority to monitor, without oversight, the communications of US citizens.

The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.

The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program.

We have no evidence of how the wiretapping was used. It might have been used to monitor political opponents. Maybe reporters. Can you say CHILLING EFFECT? Do you think the real threat here is to Rush Limbaugh?

Okay, if it helps, remember that someday there will be a democrat in the executive office. And that democrat will have the precedent established by this admin -- if nothing is done. Plenty of precedent to get the goods on Limbaugh, and funnel it to those who can use it against him -- and no oversight to catch it.

Is that the US you want?

But, the scarcity rationale for fairness is inapplicable to new media.

That's true. But irrelevant to the article.

Also, one can learn much more about campaign finance, not be reading the linked-to article, but by simply reading Buckley v. Valeo.

It's on the internets, comrades.

The Left is now pushing Congress to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which would kill talk radio and possibly conservative-friendly Fox News, too.

read the article. his judgment of fairness doctrine is the opposite of what the doctrine means. The doctrine would in fact porotect bufoons like o'reilly while also requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints.

jesus.

Looks like tubino didn't learn his lesson about not posting articles and spamming the blog.

Holy living fuck, tubino. Another fucking threadjack.

Just get your own fucking blog already, fucker.

(F-bomb dropped in honor of Ace)

Welcome to Room 101 and your host, tubino/O'Brien.

Bart, it's ok, he put a disclaimer in the middle of it, somewhere. In his world, if you say it, it must be so.

You need tubino more than you can know.

You need tubino more than you can know.

Oh, give it a break you condescending jackass.

You need tubino more than you can know.

That must be true, cause I don't know it at all!

Over and over again, what y'all claim for facts is wishful thinking, or some hackneyed, tortured presentation of facts is passed off as "analysis"--as happened in this shit article.

or like Flannery O'Conner said in A Good Man...y'all need somebody to shoot you every day of your lives.

It's "A Good Man is Hard to Find," moron. And it's Flannery O'ConnOr.

Great story.

ummm

[slinks out, having forgotten about this entirely and gone on a run with the puppy]

Aw, crap.

Try this one instead.

you're link doesn't work. why don't the links work so often using standard a href=?

I somehow doubt that Flannery O'Conner would have any truck at all with the idea of a Fairness Doctrine ... but that's just my interpretation of her writing. Y'all.

Sorry ... O'Connor.

I left out the second quotation mark.

Dammit.

BTW, is this a closed discussion or can anyone--say a lurker like me--get involved? Is there a cover charge?

"I kill comm-u-nists for free." Tony Montoya

Isn't it great we have these wonderful dissenters (my new word for patriots) taking time out of their busy schedule to help us see light.

Eagon, Toob, Larry, Mike, and the others have been generous enough to inform us on how to become better Republicans and have a better, more honest political party.

First thing we shoud do is get rid of Rush Limbaugh. He is poisoning our minds. Next on the list, support John McCain and Oympia Snow with vigor and enthusiasm. Shun the extremists like Rick Santorum, Tom Tancredo, and Dick Cheney. They are no good for our party. We need more moderates and less conservatives in order to reach the mainstream.

Finally, we need to demand FoxNews to be fair and balanced. Bill O'Reilly is a fascist and he needs to be countered with an opposing view -- for the good of our party, of course. It will show the mainstream Americans that we care about the little people in the Heartland by not being so one-sided and biased.

That's the kind of America we want, folks. The kind of America where the government decides what is fair and balanced, not the people. A goverment who dictates what people should watch, not people deciding for themselves what they watch.

Yes, I know the ratings for Air America suck and the only discernable sound you can hear on Air America is click, the sound of people cruising by their stations on the dial. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be forced into people's homes.

It's for their own good. And for the good of our dear Republican party. We need to show the people we are not fascists and media big business whores. We must demand our elected government officials take over television and radio stations across America and make them fair.

Do it for...

(wait for it)

the children.

"Do it for... (wait for it) the children."

... and for all oppressed minorities everywhere (e.g., elitist liberals).

Bart

Why is the market/private sector not coersive and the "government" is coersive, wrt speech?
The article uncritically believes "private" speech is uncoersive and not a location of gatekeeping and ideological manipulation.

Well, bullshit.

also, the fd is content-neutral, by design.

just make it up as you go.

television: toaster with pictures.

RESPECT ME!

Because I am the damn market, that's why.

If I don't like Bill O'Reilly, I don't watch Bill O'Reilly. If enough people agree with me then Mr. O'Reilly is out of a job.

According to your way, Bill O'Reilly keeps his job no matter if he has an audience of 0 (zero), sort of like NOW with Bill Moyers (or the boy who replaced Bill Moyers).

You say the free market/private sector is coersive. I say

More Power to the People.

more wishful thinking. people's preferences for media are conditioned by producers/"msm."
'
put in the way econmomists do: such preferences are "endogenous" to the consumer.

tubino, have you considered that the MSM might show more of a conservative bias if they showed America EVERYTHING Al Gore says? Keeping Al Gore away from children and the impressionable is probably the biggest favor the MSM could do for the Dems right now.

I don't know about you, but this could be like an islamic dad not letting his new son-in-law lift the veil until AFTER the wedding.

"people's preferences for media are conditioned ..."

By O'Brien in Room 101, no doubt. Using a rat cage.

I command you to love Rush Limbaugh. NOW, assholes,

I hear and obey.

You better be serious, Assholes. Don't be placating me now.

"people's preferences for media are conditioned by producers/'msm.'"

And thus you see why the liberal mindset is morally bankrupt. They can't believe that people are capable of making their own decisions and must be protected from the predatory entities in the world.

It's impossible that people actually LIKE conservative radio because it's a media outlet that is different from all the others (prior to Fox News). They must have been conditioned to like it. How does this conditioning take place? Do you honestly think that a 30 second ad is going to make someone sit through an hour long radio program that they don't like? And how is it that you managed to escape this insidious mind control? It's because you're a liberal and therefor smarter than the rest of us, right? Sure an ad might get people to tune in, but if the show is crap (Air America) they aren't going to stay.

Tubino, I wish I could quit you.

We're all sheeple, people.
We're all dupes and pawns of coprorate America.

Sheeple.
Sheeple who need sheeple
Are the luckiest sheeple in the world

people's preferences for media are conditioned by producers

I'm holding out hope that one day we'll get a smart troll. This is so f'n stupid I can't even laugh at it or make fun of it.

I know I've been conditioned by the MSM to love blonds with big hooters. I'm going to leave this thread to stare at that picture of Scarlett Johannson for a while. Oh, great God ALMIGHTY she looks good.

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid, self-righteous and arrogant liberals are! Thanks ergastularius for giving me a good laugh!

Question is: how to force and justify a kind of fairness doctrine for cyberspace. required linking to opposing websites might be the answer.

You know what's sad about you, erg? If any of us said that, it would be an obvious appeal to the absurdity of your position.

If there's anything you learn today, I hope it is that you're not nearly as intellegent as you think you are.

> Question is: how to force and justify a kind of fairness doctrine for cyberspace. required linking to opposing websites might be the answer.

You've got a swell progressive idea -- now you just have to figure out how to justify it. Pretty much the 20th Century in a nutshell.

The good news, though, is that once you come up with a justification you can slip past Mr. and Mrs. Nascar T. Jesusland, figuring out how to "force" it will be a cakewalk.

Sortelli, you magnificent bastard! I didn't read your post!

When I was reading this thread, the 2 stupidist things I saw were eggbeater's comment on the desirability of policing the net to enforce his moron version of 'fairness', which has been dealt with by sortelli and guy t, and this pronouncement:

"the right has sought to put some kinds of limits on bloggers AS JOURNALISTS" - tubby poison troll

A typical categorical smear, brooking no argument, yet nonsensical on its face and of course without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

And then there's this from the same post:

"And you can't make up a story about a fire and sell it as news."

Woudl someone then please let the nyt know that tubby thinks they crossed the line with the Plame story?

How on earth do these trolls think they're smarter than anyone when they're dumber than the broken leg on my kitchen table?

"Citizen, if you want to buy pie, you are also required to buy poop."

-"But I don't want poop."

"IF YOU WANT PIE, YOU TAKE POOP TOO."

-"OK, OK, sheesh!"
*takes pie and little bag of poop*

"Citizen."

-"What now?"

"You gonna eat that?"

Sortelli

say something smart, please.

brew

as usual, you combat an argument with unsubstantiated ignorance.

Sunstein, among others, has argued for a cyberspace fd.

None of you, I see, actually read the fucking article linked to by ace.

Many of you here are idiots. just fucking idiots.

That's the spirit!

Yes, yes...fuck you too!

also,

you say, here in expiry, the msm is "liberal" and must be fought by you great denizens of rightwing virtue in cyberspace. you say this because you believe msm misleads people from your version of the "truth." that is to also say: people's "demand" is often conditioned by msm. But in the next breath you morons say: power to the people! we chose rush limbaugh!

I'm sure the geeks on this site can identify the quote in my second line pretty quick.

5...4...3...2...

Why do "liberals" think we're dumb? you ask.

duh.

Lee, wasn't that Eddy Murphy in "Coming to America"?

snuffalouphagus, you think we're "great denizens of rightwing virtue"? Wow. SOMEONE wasn't here for all the "Dick Cheney's Cock" posts last month.

Righto. I figured it was a fitting way to welcome ergal...etc to the bunch.

say something smart, please.

If you insist, erg.

Your desire to see the government allowed to frame the sides of any given debate by forcing websites to link to the "opposing" view will allow those in power to remain so by creating idealogical strawmen and silencing any point of view that doesn't lend itself to one side or the other of the government's manufactured "issues".

Your inability to grasp this, beyond your ridiculous belief that an open market of ideas is actually a closed one, marks you as a very intellectually stunted individual, but thankfully one that will never, ever succeed in appealing the the American public at large.

Also, your assumption that all of us here must listen to Rush Limbaugh slavishly doesn't do you any credit, but very little you say does.

I'm more of a Glenn Beck guy myself. Guy's just funny.

Awww, yeah, ya sick freak!

I used to yell about the government
but Eg done showed me where the money's spent

why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?

If the audience doesn't listen to or watch shows on a privately owned network, the network loses capitalists' money and goes out of business.

If the audience doesn't listen to or watch shows on a government controlled network, the network loses taxpayers' money but is never taken off the air.

Read more Chomsky, you Marxist dumbass, and never bother to ask yourself how a fucking linguist can get rich by claiming to be a political expert and denouncing the very same country that provides a lucrative marketplace for his drivel.

but dammit! how can I be expected to compete on my own merits? i havent even figured out my shift key yet

i demand goverment assistance. they need to subsidize me and tubino. you need us.

government agents will be reporting to your homes shortly to install the appropriate links.

Ergawhatever writes 'people's preferences for media are conditioned by producers/"msm."'

This is completely typical modern liberal thought: people are stupid, they don't know better, we need to help them be more like us. No one is being tricked into listening to Rush or watch Bill O'Reilly. Hell, I don't watch or listen to either, despite that mind control Erga references.

After you finish Spiderman, watch every Cassavetes' films, lil bros., every one.

sue

stupid bitch, you. really.

did you get chained to a bed by a trotskyite?

what happened?

Oh no! Producers/"msm" have conditioned ergastularius's writing into being even more poorly expressed than usual!

Look, I only passed him because he speaks a great Marxist cant. In person. Put a pen and paper or a keyboard in his hands and it's just a fucking human tragedy. We had more success trying to teach the written word to monkeys.

He assured me, however, that it was because he had been conditioned into being a fantastically poor writer by corporate media, and man, is there anything those guys can't do?

They're all Jews, you know.

Yeah. I can say that. I got tenure.

When did the "lil bros" and "little brothers" usage start in his posts? Is that a sign of growing closeness and caring? Maybe, even love?

I'm not sure that first one was actually him. To many capitalized letters.

I'm not sure that first one was actually him. Too many capitalized letters.

*innocent look*

Wait, wait, wait - what becomes of us celibate/chaste folks? What kind of idiots are we? Don't leave us out! It's discrimination, y'know.

I used to play at Whack-A-Troll
Wastin' time on a total asshole

why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?

ergastularius:
Question is: how to force and justify a kind of fairness doctrine for cyberspace. required linking to opposing websites might be the answer.

Wow. Just, wow, man.

On the one hand, this post is hilarious because it's so fucking stupid. On the other hand, it gives me the chills.

He wants to force the exchange of information to meet his ideological standards. He wants to put requirements on what people can say. There's no other way to interpret this.

A lot of evil has been done in this world by people starting out with what seem like good intentions. If I were you, ergastularius, I'd do some soul-searching, because you've just inadvertently revealed something really ugly about yourself. I'm not kidding.

(By the way, I used to be a socialist, in my youth. So it's not like your views are totally alien to me. Only, I didn't reject evidence that wouldn't mesh with my ideology. So I grew up. I hope someday you do the same.)

Why can't we be freinds?

Because it's spelled FRIENDS.

Oh god I am so drunk.

How does one go from this:

But, the scarcity rationale for fairness is inapplicable to new media.

to this:

Question is: how to force and justify a kind of fairness doctrine for cyberspace. required linking to opposing websites might be the answer.

in a single post? Without a breath?

I used to worry 'bout my spelling
Now I'm just yankin' on my ding-a-ling

why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?

I know that there's a scarcity rationale
You wankers all can just go to hell

why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?
why can't we be freinds?

read the article. his judgment of fairness doctrine is the opposite of what the doctrine means. The doctrine would in fact porotect bufoons like o'reilly while also requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints.

That's not the argument. The article points out that in cases where the carrier is required to air opposing content for which there is no market, he will often choose to drop both sides of that content to avoid losing money.

Jesus.

you say, here in expiry, the msm is "liberal" and must be fought by you great denizens of rightwing virtue in cyberspace. you say this because you believe msm misleads people from your version of the "truth." that is to also say: people's "demand" is often conditioned by msm.

Those two statements (the MSM misleads people and the MSM conditions people) do not follow - there is no equivalence between those statements. So your accusation of hypocrisy falls apart.

Question is: how to force and justify a kind of fairness doctrine for cyberspace. required linking to opposing websites might be the answer.

The only problem with such a belief is that the rationale for the fairness doctrine does not apply here. The fairness doctrine was applied because of the belief that the public airways were public trustees and for that reason, had to offer reasonable opportunity for debate between contrasting points of view.

It was later interpreted to say that stations had to take an active role in pursuing points of view that were not normally heard. The government had the power to do this because it alone distributed broadcast licenses that gave stations the right to send information over a particular frequency.

Government has no such role in assigning internet addresses, so it has no claim on the internet, so to speak. Add in the fact that most bloggers purchase their own bandwidth, it can hardly be argued there is a public trust issue here. Blogs, by virtue of design, are private spaces - so forcing someone who owns a website and pays for the means of distributing their information to put something on their website that is contradictory to their views would violate not only their first amendment rights, but their fourth as well, since it is illegal for the government to seize private property (well at least it used to be).

Since you've consistently communicated a more socialist viewpoint on this blog, your views are not surprising. They should be abhorrent, however, to anyone who values free dialogue and the marketplace of ideas.

Question is: how to force and justify a kind of fairness doctrine for cyberspace. required linking to opposing websites might be the answer.

I have a suggestion...

After reading all of erg's comments, I have come to the conclusion that he is either a very stupid liberal/commie or a fraud -- someone of reasonable intelligence that is just spouting mindless marxisms in an attempt to humor us.

I'm leaning toward the latter.

geoff

I didn't contradict myself. The rationale followed by SC in Red Lion to justify fairness doctrine was broadcast scarcity. So, the internet is not regulated in the same way. The famous Reno cases explain the reasons. Still, some people like Sunstein, Lessig and others have come up with mandatory linking as a possible solution--a kind of fd for cyberspace.

Some knuckleheads here fail to acknowledge the contradiction that an msm filled with nattering nabobs like rush is somehow ok, but assuring "robust debate" isn't because it's not "what the people want." This is bullshit. Aside from the fallacy the old msm of brokaw, et al. were "liberal," which they were not, is the added ridiculousness here among knuckleheads that because "the market" seems to produce media goods appealing to the average knucklehead, then there is no coercion. It's the hallmark of ideology to convince the consumer what he thinks is his own "choice." The whole idea behind Madisonian democracy is, as Brennan put it: :robust debate"--not consumer "choice."

And that's the general problem w/ this shit article: assumption that private speech--speech of corporations like newscorp--is not coercive. This is untrue.

free dialogue and the marketplace of ideas.

this is an inadequate, trite evaluation of speech.

doesn't anybody here know anything about constitutional law? any lawyers?

hey, that guy's just using my name. it don't mean shit.

Sortelli

you've said nothing, nothing as usual.

You know, ergastularius, one of your constant complaints about this blog is that no one engages your 'ideas.'

I tried, and your response was dismissal - you didn't even bother trying to deal with what I presented regarding the fairness doctrine.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a former reporter and know that the main legacy of the fairness doctrine was a chilling of speech. If you had any idea of the history of the doctrine, you would not be such an advocate for its return.

A piece of advice - if you want people to listen to you, don't be an asshole to those that try to respond to your arguments.

slublog

thanks for admonishment. pay a little attention how others here "respond" to me. as I get I give.

The fd doesn't work? stifles speech? to the extent it "stifled" this was true as the article describes: broadcasters who often prefer right speech, refused to accommodate other views, so they dumped public interest programming for the Jetsons.

This outcome of fd only too well proves the deceit of "marketplace of ideas." Deregulation of content-neutral regulation like fd only concentrated resources of speech reflecting the interests of elites. And, sadly, such interests--interests conditioning consumer "demand"--are claimed by consumers as individual "preference."

Slublug. Two centuries of first am. jurisprudence has tried to sort out the conflict of the prohibition of government "action" on speech, and the usually encouraged speech of corporations, no matter how concentrated.

The article ignorantly excludes this history. And so do you.

And yes. Only a few here have ever demonstrated some willingness to know anything. Even when the gentleman are gathered in the livingroom for serious discussion, while the women and liberals sit in the kitchen, playing yahtzee. All I hear is the pleasantly inane confirmations of ignorance.

I wasn't addressing the article itself, but my own personal knowledge of the fairness doctrine and its effects on political speech. Although the FD was beloved by politicians and those who have an ideological ax to grind, it was not especially well-liked by journalists, who did not feel it was the government's place to enforce 'fairness.'

I'm well versed in the history of the doctrine and do not appreciate being told what I'm "ignorantly excluding."

This will mark the end of our dialogue, as you seem to have no interest in civility.

"Only a few here have ever demonstrated some willingness to know anything."

Translation -- they don't agree with everything I say so they must be stupid.

"Even when the gentleman are gathered in the livingroom for serious discussion, while the women and liberals sit in the kitchen, playing yahtzee."

Translation -- I don't know how to write a complete sentence...

"All I hear is the pleasantly inane confirmations of ignorance."

Translation -- they don't love me.

crocodile tears about "civility"

One could do no better to understand the trajectory of case law regarding speech regulation than to merely read: frankfurter's NBC decision, red lion, tornillo, turner cases, reno cases.

you'll quickly understand the problems of democracy v. capitalism. all written by your rightwing heroes.

The famous Reno cases explain the reasons.

So I looked at the Reno vs. ACLU decision, and all I could find was decency and free speech arguments - nothing about the internet being subject to the Fairness Doctrine.

Then I read an article by Sunstein, which was not very compelling. His argument appears to be: 1)free speech is not an absolute because the gov't has criminalized certain aspects of speech; 2) lack of balanced exposure can lead to extremism; and so 3) we should return to a Madisonian intervention in online content. That glosses over points like: 1) people like you bring countervailing POVs to sites like this; 2) a plethora of liberal sites are a click away; 3) the internet blog could be considered more of a "club" of like-minded participants; 4) who decides what a proper balance is?; 5) his suggestion that major sites carry balanced informational content undermines the raison d'etre and likely the readership of the blogger; and the efficacy of such an approach is likely to be nil.

I suggested reno because the cases are interesting in the way the court justifies new media regulation. and yes, nothing about fd, but the rationale of reno precludes such regulation, it seems.

About Sunstein: I totally agree w/ your assessment. Maybe, if you have a day to kill, read his short republic.com. His use of cognitive psych. (information cascades, herding, etc.) to justify regulation is pretty compelling.