FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees,” and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the “Mayflower Doctrine,” which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station’s. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as “Ascertainment of Community Needs,” and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance–to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a “Christian Crusade” program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This “chilling effect” was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The “scarcity” argument which dictated the “public trustee” philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

Duration : 0:2:50

Read more about FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Atlanta Gas Shortage Martial Law Case Study

http://tinyurl.com/4wkghw Atlanta Gas shortage is out of control. Does your city have any gas? Is the media even talking about this outside of Atlanta? Please comment.

Duration : 0:3:42

Read more about Atlanta Gas Shortage Martial Law Case Study

Attorney General Tom Corbet 4/17/10 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania on case law and the Constitution 1of 5

Attorney General Tom Corbet 4/17/10 only politician does not understand that the constitution is supreme law of the land

Duration : 0:8:27

Read more about Attorney General Tom Corbet 4/17/10 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania on case law and the Constitution 1of 5

Eric Holder Drops Charges on Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation – Bill O’Reilly Reports

Attorney General Eric Holder, I believe for political reasons, has dropped all charges relating to the Black Panthers voter intimidation in last falls Presidential election. Why would he drop such an open and shut case? The Black panthers never even showed up to defend themselves. There was no way that the government was going to lose this case, unless of course they were to drop all charges, which is what they did, but why?

I believe that Obama and Eric Holder didn’t want to alienate their core voters by going after the “New” Black Panthers. And sense they knew that the mainstream news media is in their back pocket, and therefore would not report on it, they just dropped the charges, why would they not? You might think that they would care about equal protection under the law, and just the rule of law in general, but it is apparent that they do not. It is obvious to me that they couldn’t give a flying flip about the rule of law; they do as they please.

If you think about it, the underlying reason that this was not prosecuted is because it was a case where white people were intimidated to vote a certain way, or to not vote at all. I’m not sure if you have noticed it or not, but the “progressives” are not concerned in the least about protecting the rights of anyone who is white; they could care less. They do not apply the law equally, but instead they use it to their advantage in order to further their political goals, one of which is to dismantle the power structure in this country as it now exists.

It looks like Eric Holder is as much of a fraud as Barack Obama is; they are like two peas in a pod, they compliment each other perfectly. They should have great success over the next four years unraveling our Republics core legal principles; of this I have no doubt.
jbranstetter04

Dept. Of Justice Drops New Black Panthers Case

Sources told The Bulletin that there is internal dissension in the Department of Justice (DOJ) about a voter intimidation case from last years presidential election. Obama appointees did not want to proceed with the case, while the career prosecutors did. The incident occurred in Philadelphia and involved the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPPSD).

The DOJ filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the NBPPSD and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election. The action was filed in January before President George W. Bush left office.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, alleged that on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2008 in Philadelphia, NBPPSD members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at the entrance to a polling location at 1221 Fairmount Avenue, wearing the uniform of the organization. It also states Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon.

The complaint said NBPPSD Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy NBPPSD members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by NBPPSD members at polling locations.
Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process, said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker at the time. The Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.

None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. Instead of immediately filing for a default judgment as is the normal procedure, sources told The Bulletin the DOJ asked for and received an order from the court providing an extension of time to file. Specifically, they asked the court to give them until May 15.

But on May 15, DOJ changed its mind again. Rather than a default judgment, the DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants. This included Mr. Jackson, who identified himself to police as a member of the Democratic Committee in the 14th Ward. He also produced credentials to that effect.

It is absolutely unprecedented for the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit after the defendants failed to answer the suit and are thus in default,” he said.

Mr. von Spakovsky said that the NBPPSD’s lack of response was the legal equivalent of an admission of all theallegations made about the defendants organized effort to threaten and intimidate voters.

“And dismissing an individual who was a local Democratic party official who defaulted by not answering the complaint smacks of the worst sort of political partisanship,” he said. “It is completely contrary to all of the promises that Eric Holder made when he was confirmed to be Attorney General…..

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_stories/doc4a1f42b32c161287079901.txt

Duration : 0:6:41

Read more about Eric Holder Drops Charges on Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation – Bill O’Reilly Reports

case law question for a road traffic accident?

Is there a case law that i can review regarding a road traffic accident when the third party had pulled out of a side road & the claimant has had to take evasive action because of this & subsequently wrote their car off & suffered injury without hitting the TP vehicle? Serious answers only please. […]

Associate Justice Ming W. Chin and Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter

The California Supreme Court has ruled October 27, 2010 that the actions by Government in this video are legal in the California published case law Decision Bookou v. State of California.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.

In November or December of 2010 the California Supreme Court will decide about this undisputed facts below and video evidence of Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo and the Oceano Community Service District in the published California Case law Decision Bookout v. State of California!

It is unfortunate that I am having to make the videos presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman in the now California Case Law Decision Bookout v. State of California public!

The flooding of our State Highway 1 in the town of Oceano California is not 100% the fault of POVE as seen in the evidence presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman.

The County of San Luis Obispo in their “Answer To Petition For Review” by Thomas L. Riordon, SBN 104827 shows the Supreme Court why this review is necessary as the County explains on P. 5 “The Oceano Community Service District (District) owns a water well. From time to time, the well discharges water into the drainage channel that leads to the culvert under the rail bed. (RT Vol. 5:1265-1266)”
The County LIES about Testomony by Dan Sutton from POVE as Dan had stated 02-03 NOT 2000! The County mentions the Davis daily logs(exhibit #1768) that shows No Date of Stabilization!

The County of San Luis Obispo acknowledges “No Date Of Stabilization” the construction permitted in the drainage channel by the County, allowing the OCSD Well # 8 discharge Pipe installed into this drainage culvert! (Per Davis Testimony!) The County States: “Davis’s daily log for that year makes referance to a meeting with Bookout on December 20, 2002. (RT Vol. 2:402) Bookout took a picture of the pipe going into the drainage channel in the aftermath of a rain event in 2002.” The County States: “The picture included a District employee. (RT Vol. 2:403) This photo shows No Date of Stabilization and that OCSD and Caltrans had not properly corrected the complaint in Exhibit # 579! Thus showing that the partial use of Exhibit # 579 was a predjudicial Error in now California Case Law “Bookout v. State of California!”

THE SECOND APPELLATE COURT OF APPEAL OPINION IS INCONSISTENT WITH EXISTING CALIFORNIA PRECEDENT AND DOES REQUIRE A NEW TRIAL!

PLEASE REVIEW THE VIDEO PRESENTED TO JUDGE MARTIN J. TANGEMAN OF OCSD DISCHARGE FROM WELL # 8 PER EXHIBITS # 1768 AND # 579! THIS ACTION GOES AGAINST RECENT CALIFORNIA CASE LAW “SKOUMBAS V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA”

THE SECOND APPELLATE COURT STATES: “Bookout points to no findings of fact in his favor. Instead, he relies on over 500 photographs and videos showing the flooding, several hundred documents which he claims show each defendant exercised dominion and control over the drainage facilities, and the testimony of his expert engineer, Keith Crow. He believes the evidence against the defendants was overwhelming.
Bookout claims the evidence is credible because it is uncontradicted. He cites Joseph v. Drew (1950) 36 Cal.2d 575, 579, for the proposition that uncontradicted testimony of a witness may not be disregarded, but should be accepted as proof of the fact to which the witness testified. Indeed, there are no doubt cases where the uncontradicted testimony of a witness is so credible that no reasonable trier of fact could reject it. But this is not such a case.
Here there is an obvious cause of the flooding. The Exchange modified the drainage by constructing a junction box and pipeline that redirected the flow of water by 90 degrees.”

The Second Appellate Court Justices–Steven Z. Perren, Arthur Gilbert and Kenneth R. Yegan are fully aware of Judge Martin J. Tangemans statements in his August 5, 2008 inverse condemnation decision on P. 7 per photo exhibits # 1278-1337 and 1338 of this OCSD pipe directly inside the Railroad Culvert! They now allow Government to block and dam storm water drainages systems as seen in these photos! Photo Evidence/Exhibits presented to Judge Martin J. Tangeman 1278-1337-1338 pdf…

The Second Appellate Court is mistaken on P. 8 of their July 28, 2010 published California Case Law decision as testimony presented to the Second Appellate Court from Phil Davis of the Oceano Community Service District and exhibit 1768 are facts that have been seen and mentioned by the Second Appellate Court! This evidence is overwhelming as seen above and below! These drainage changesare made after the Appellate Courts P. 8 100% Blame of the Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange!

Duration : 0:8:26

Read more about Associate Justice Ming W. Chin and Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter