Blantant pandering. For one thing, the "Fairness Doctrine"
didn't have anything to do with violent speech, it had to do with requiring the media to present both sides of an election issue: "The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced."
Second, banning cross-hair imagery is simply stupid. Like banning fingernail clippers after 9/11 (oh, wait...)
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.I have no reason to believe that anyone but them care.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Glenn Magus Harvey said, in the Rep Giffords thread:
While true, that they keep coming up annoys the dogsnot out of me. While the US Supreme Court has ruled that there are legitimate limitations on speech (the oft-mentioned "falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" being a more obvious example), those legitimate limitations are very few, and in no way invalidate "Congress shall pass no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech
" the way the politicians proposing these things act like they do.
Indeed.
Also,
it's funny how this came out of a thread that ended up being about not stereotyping conservatives.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.. . . Okay, I admit it. This is dumber and more obviously unconstitutional than those anti-anchor baby laws.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulCan't pass, just a motion, not happening.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.This is one of those stupid things that everyone will have forgotten about by tomorrow.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play"Never Let a Good Crisis Go To Waste"
Rahm Emanuel
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/ http://sagan4.com/forum/index.phpThat kind of policy makes for great television. The BBC has its own such policy and it is not uncommon for people to say things like "But we all know the tory party are a bunch of shits, although in the interests of the BBC's fairness policy I should also acknowledge that the labour party are also quite shit themselves."

Inspired and taken from the other topic in a similar vein specifically the contents of the post seen here.
Representative Jim Clyburn (unfortunately from my state, but in another congressional district) is making noises about re-instating the Fairness Doctrine. I may be misremembering, but didn't Nixon use the threat of FD to intimidate his critics into silence?
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jan/09/clyburn-az-shooting-should-redefine-free-speech-pa/
Representative Bob Brady (PA-D) is proposing a law to ban the use of "crosshair" imagery in connection with politicians, in spite of ZERO evidence that the oft-cited "bulls eye map" from Palin was even remotely connected to the shooting. The whole targeting imagery thing has been used for a long time in political discussions (at least decades, I believe), and there's not been any massive shooting spree of politicians.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/democratic-congressman-says-he-will-introduce-bill-to-ban-crosshairs-maps/
I hope you're happy Democrats, you just now shattered any hope of maintaining an image of being in favor of people's rights by wanting to politicize that tragedy to curb our oldest and most cherished rights.
My best guess is even if it passes via reactionary politics it won't survive the SCOTUS.
edited 11th Jan '11 2:22:10 PM by MajorTom