Senator Rockefeller would like to get MSNBC and Fox off the air

[American]

RealClearPolitics - Video - Sen. Rockefeller: FCC Should Take FOX News, MSNBC Off Airwaves

This man has no respect for the 1st Amendment. He's tired of the right and the left; and I'm tired of rich Rockefeller's in the government.

 

[PeteEU]

RealClearPolitics - Video - Sen. Rockefeller: FCC Should Take FOX News, MSNBC Off Airwaves

This man has no respect for the 1st Amendment. He's tired of the right and the left; and I'm tired of rich Rockefeller's in the government.

Then why are the Republican's trying to defund the NPR?

GOP to force vote on NPR defunding - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Or does the 1st amendment only apply to the left, but not the right?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Then why are the Republican's trying to defund the NPR?

GOP to force vote on NPR defunding - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Or does the 1st amendment only apply to the left, but not the right?

Because public funding of a selected network is a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[American]

Then why are the Republican's trying to defund the NPR?

GOP to force vote on NPR defunding - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Or does the 1st amendment only apply to the left, but not the right?

Because it doesn't need the money. How much funding does Fox get from the govt?

 

[tacomancer]

Because public funding of a selected network is a violation of the 1st amendment.

You are going to have to explain that line of thought.

 

[Barbbtx]

You are going to have to explain that line of thought.

All taxpayers pay for NPR but they only hire/cater to one side, The left.

 

[tacomancer]

All taxpayers pay for NPR but they only hire/cater to one side, The left.

If money = speech, as the supreme court has suggested, than funding cannot reduce speech as it creates it. Therefore it cannot be anti first amendment.

If money can drown out speech (and this is the view I have), well, than we have a whole new case to argue to the SCOTUS!

 

[Barbbtx]

If money = speech, as the supreme court has suggested, than funding cannot reduce speech as it creates it. Therefore it cannot be anti first amendment.

What's your take on what Rockefeller said?

 

[tacomancer]

What's your take on what Rockefeller said?

If you took the effort to follow the chain of quotes back up, you would note that the originator of this discussion was with Pete EU, not with the OP, as Pete's post pretty much has nothing to do with American's. Please try harder.

 

[Barbbtx]

If you took the effort to follow the chain of quotes back up, you would note that the originator of this discussion was with Pete EU, not with the OP, as Pete's post pretty much has nothing to do with American's. Please try harder.

Read the subject line. You got on me other thread for same thing you are doing here.

 

[tacomancer]

Read the subject line. You got on me other thread for same thing you are doing here.

Please show me how you are catching me in a lie and I am avoiding the subject in an attempt to not admit my error.

 

[DarkWizard12]

If money = speech, as the supreme court has suggested, than funding cannot reduce speech as it creates it. Therefore it cannot be anti first amendment.

If money can drown out speech (and this is the view I have), well, than we have a whole new case to argue to the SCOTUS!

That's not what was argued but ok

we are talking about public funding, not private. Some of us don't agree with NPR, yet, we are forced to give our money as taxpayers to them.

Whereas with the supreme court case, it was argued for private businesses that may or may not recieve government funding to begin with. If we don't like a business giving money to political candidate, we can just find another business. we can't do that with NPR.

 

[Harshaw]

Then why are the Republican's trying to defund the NPR?

GOP to force vote on NPR defunding - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Or does the 1st amendment only apply to the left, but not the right?

Explain the 1st Amendment issue there. Do it in detail.

This song and dance should be the pop sensation of the month. :lamo

 

[haymarket]

Because it doesn't need the money. How much funding does Fox get from the govt?

How much airtime would FOX have to fill without all the GOP talking heads giving them free on air talent with those nice capital columns in the background all day long? of course, maybe they are just paying back that $1 million dollar campaign donation from FOX's corporate owner.

There are different ways to support something other than a direct donation.

 

[cpwill]

Then why are the Republican's trying to defund the NPR?

GOP to force vote on NPR defunding - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Or does the 1st amendment only apply to the left, but not the right?

freedom to speech =/= forcing others to support your speech.

as for the OP, I agree, I propose a swap: say, no more Bushes, no more Rockefellers, and no more Kennedy's in the Federal Government.

 

[tacomancer]

That's not what was argued but ok

we are talking about public funding, not private. Some of us don't agree with NPR, yet, we are forced to give our money as taxpayers to them.

Whereas with the supreme court case, it was argued for private businesses that may or may not recieve government funding to begin with. If we don't like a business giving money to political candidate, we can just find another business. we can't do that with NPR.

Sorry, it was my attempt to understand your comment. Can you please tell me the reasoning behind it?