Fox Has Broken the LAW. and a link to the law.

[garrettwombat]

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html



Political Broadcasting.


Broadcasts by Candidates for Public Office. When a qualified candidate for public office has been permitted to use a station, the Communications Act requires the station to "afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office." The Act also states that the station "shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast" by the candidate. We do not consider either of the following two categories as a "use" that is covered by this rule:

An appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, interview or documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject covered by the documentary); or

on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including political conventions and related incidental activities).

Political Editorials. Within 24 hours of airing an editorial where the station itself either supports or opposes a candidate for public office, it must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office or to the candidate who was opposed in the editorial: (1) notification of the date and the time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air.

[yongrel]

I disagree with that law. I feel that Fox should have the right to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they want.

As much as I would love for Ron Paul to get on the air, I will not sacrifice my principles to do so.

[Perry]

Input?

[Perry]

I disagree with that law. I feel that Fox should have the right to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they want.

As much as I would love for Ron Paul to get on the air, I will not sacrifice my principles to do so.

Why not force fox to obey the law until the law is changed? Even Ron Paul obeys some unjust laws.

[Bern]

... on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including political conventions and related incidental activities).

I have read opinions that debates are covered under this term. I wonder though, how "bona fide" is defined.

[slamhead]

Obviously I am for free enterprise but it seems this rule was created to protect against just this. Ron Paul does not have to support the rule but there is nothing against him using it against them.

[sgrooms]

I disagree with that law. I feel that Fox should have the right to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they want.

As much as I would love for Ron Paul to get on the air, I will not sacrifice my principles to do so.

i agree with the law 100%. it prevents us from being in a situation like russia. even though we're headed there.

[LibertyEagle]

I always thought that this did not apply to cable stations, but what you posted indicates I was wrong.

If this is in fact true, I certainly think they should be held to it. There is a good reason for that law, for the same reason there are laws against monopolies and oligopolies.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

I don't see this as a bad law. Indeed the law seems to be there to ensure elections can not be rigged or be unfair. I don't see any reason for this law to be overturned by Ron Paul. This law was created exactly for times such as this. Elections are not something that we "let the market decide".

[freedom-maniac]

Screw the FCC. More government buracracy. I say we respect FOX's 1st Amendment rights to Freedom of the Press, but use our freedoms of assembly, petition, etc. to take FOX down!

[garrettwombat]

i agree with the law in full... it helps prevent biased propaganda.

they should follow the law...

you guys are looking at fox like its a business..
its not just a business it is a massive media outlet.
a way of thinking, and laws like this are put into place to regulate propaganda

[Yom]

The airwaves are currently public, so there's no problem with the law. Of course, they should be privatized and sold and traded as a commodity, but until that's the case, there's no reason to punish Faux under the full extent of the law.

[mconder]

Since FOX operates as a government propaganda apparatus and therefor is a quasi private entity, this law should apply to them. There should be a class action on this!

[freedom-maniac]

If we use this the MSM will crucify us as being hypocrits.

[nc4rp]

why not ask fox what they think about the law?http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=67813

[Suzu]

The campaign has a lawyer or two on staff and probably a few hundred more in the grassroots...

[speciallyblend]

i agree with the law in full... it helps prevent biased propaganda.

they should follow the law...

you guys are looking at fox like its a business..
its not just a business it is a massive media outlet.
a way of thinking, and laws like this are put into place to regulate propaganda

+1,000,000,000

[Midnight77]

But this goes back to the main question. Does the FCC have jurisdiction over FOX News Channel as it is a Cable News Network? If it was Network, there would be no question, but since it is cable, I don't think the FCC can intervene. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Minuteman]

You know, How about we just say screw FOX. It wouldnt hurt my feelings if they didnt show Ron anymore, if he didnt do any interviews with him, and didnt report on him at all.

Stop boosting their ratings and just turn them off.

[pdavis]

This has been brought up in the past. First, the Fox News Channel is a private cable channel, not a "public" broadcast. Second, the equal time laws are idiotic since there are hundreds of people running for the US presidency. Do you want to give them all equal time?

[beazy]

im pretty sure the fcc still has jurisdiction because cable channels still use satellites to broadcast to the local cable companies who feed the stream etc.

[surf]

only gov't can create or enable a monopoly (see liquor stores in certain states, or mail, etc.). True free markets don't allow monopolies.

i don't care if Fox is breaking a dumbass law that they probably helped write - the law shouldn't exist - it's called the first amendment. members of the $2300 club know what i'm talking about.

i agree with Minuteman - screw Fox News. Let them whither and die - and if we can accelerate this, then that's what we should do.

[Mark]

Someone posted last ight that that doesn't apply to debates. Because then eveyone would get the same amount of speaking time.

Which we all know has been heavily biased against Ron.

Excluding him altogether, given his support and various poll numbers, may be applicable though.

The Campaign has lots of Attorneys available, both officially and not. I'm sure they're on it.

[freelance]

The airwaves are currently public, so there's no problem with the law. Of course, they should be privatized and sold and traded as a commodity, but until that's the case, there's no reason to punish Faux under the full extent of the law.

We the people own the airwaves. They broadcast/cable stations have to serve and protect the public interest. And, what if they don't? We the people have the right to challenge their license.

Check this out:

http://www.mediamouse.org/features/091405citiz.php

Don't get mad. GET EVEN! :eek:

It may well be that Rupert Murdoch understands full well that his reign as media king are over with a Ron Paul presidency, since we the people own the airwaves over which he broadcasts.

[jake]

I don't see this as a bad law. Indeed the law seems to be there to ensure elections can not be rigged or be unfair. I don't see any reason for this law to be overturned by Ron Paul. This law was created exactly for times such as this. Elections are not something that we "let the market decide".

agreed. the rule of law should be obeyed when it comes to fairness in elections.

[smartpeople4ronpaul]

I disagree with that law. I feel that Fox should have the right to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they want.

As much as I would love for Ron Paul to get on the air, I will not sacrifice my principles to do so.

You're kidding right? They're ignoring Ron Paul and you think they should?

[SteveMartin]

I disagree with that law. I feel that Fox should have the right to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they want.

As much as I would love for Ron Paul to get on the air, I will not sacrifice my principles to do so.

Your principles are errantly contrived. The Constitution guarantees us a free press. This exclusion is tyrannical and fraudulent, and expressly designed to give the voters of NH the impression that one candidate is doing more poorly than all other measures show that he is. It is intentional and blatant manipulation of the democratic process, and comes very close to treason.

Your personal principal smacks of the extreme Libertarian wing of this movement, not the Constitutional wing, and your principals cease to be legitimate when they violate the clear meaning of the Constitution.

Other Libertarians on this forum have argued that to insist on a free press violates "private property rights." This is very poor reasoning, as no one has ever been permitted to commit fraud on their own property and cite that as some sort of excuse.

[nc4rp]

> 900 and rising, keep it up pass it on.

[Joe Schwartz]

You're kidding right? They're ignoring Ron Paul and you think they should?

Of course he doesn't think that they should ignore Ron Paul. He thinks they should be allowed to ignore him, and I agree.

[Myerz]

So............What are we going to do?

[BeFranklin]

It doesn't matter if you disagree or agree with the law. This is about the media. Have lawyers threaten to sue, start an investigation. That will have a news story effect and cause sponsors to leave fox and people to wake up.

Threaten now and get it in the media. Laws were broken!

[Revolution9]

I disagree with that law. I feel that Fox should have the right to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they want.

As much as I would love for Ron Paul to get on the air, I will not sacrifice my principles to do so.

They lease the airwaves from We The People. It ain't private property in that regards and they are to be stewards ... which they obviously are not.

You apologize too much for those who are by the nature of their acts, our enemy.

Randy

[BeFranklin]

Someone posted last ight that that doesn't apply to debates. Because then eveyone would get the same amount of speaking time.



This isn't being called a debate though.