[magentabluesky]

FCC Fairness Doctrine

The fairness doctrine has never been applied to the written press. Ever since the country was founded, newspapers and publications have always had editorial control over what they print.

In 1949 congress approved the FCC Fairness Doctrine for broadcasters (tv and radio). The key point at the time was there were a limited number of broadcasters requiring licensing by the FCC, so to be fair to opposing views of the broadcast stations; they were required to give broadcast time to “other” view points.

By 1987 the FCC found that, as the law stood in 1987, the Fairness Doctrine violated the First Amendment.

In 2011 the Fairness Doctrine was completely eliminated as there is an abundance of broadcasters (cable, satellite, and web) and there is an excess of web space and bandwidth for the exercise of free speech.

The application of fairness on the internet is everyone can exercise their free speech rights with their own website and bandwidth.

History of the Fairness Doctrine from my viewpoint.

Links:

FCC Fairness Doctrine

FCC Eliminates Fairness Doctrine

Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues (pdf)

[Bob Kuczewski]

The first 2 items listed on the FCC's "What we do" page mention competition:

• Promoting competition, innovation and investment ...
  
• Supporting the nation's economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework ...

That's exactly what's missing in hang gliding communications.

Hang Gliding communication is largely controlled by two virtual monopolies: USHPA and hanggliding.org.

They both use their monopolies to punish competitors.

USHGA.aero will soon find this to be true ... just as USHGRS has.

[magentabluesky]

To Red: Can you quote for us what rule was in place at the time of
Joe's banning that justified - in your own mind - Joe being banned?
Link

hg.org is private property.

Not only is Jack the operator, Jack is the owner. Jack is the property owner of HG.org. Jack has property rights in his ownership of hg.org.
Link

Also, society has established the rights to take or exert control over private property for a number of reasons (eminent domain, illegal activities, monopolies, etc.).
Link

So Bob to be clear, it is your position that Jack should be required to provide web space and band width on hanggliding.org to Joe even though Jack does not believe in promoting Joe’s USHRS?

[Bob Kuczewski]

So Bob to be clear, it is your position that Jack should be required to provide web space and band width on hanggliding.org to Joe even though Jack does not believe in promoting Joe’s USHRS?

No.

[Free]

To Red: Can you quote for us what rule was in place at the time of
Joe's banning that justified - in your own mind - Joe being banned?

The Bob K., Scott Wise and related people rule?

hg.org is private property.

Not only is Jack the operator, Jack is the owner. Jack is the property owner of HG.org. Jack has property rights in his ownership of hg.org.

Jack advertises as 'hang gliding community'. Therefore a privately owned public square.
The Supreme Court has ruled that you can't censor political or religious speech in a public space, even if privately owned.
Besides, it just makes Jack Axaopolous look like a weak little pussy.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael,

I answered your question directly (see my previous post), so maybe you could return the favor.

Would you classify Joe's banning from hanggliding.org as having been done justly or unjustly?

[magentabluesky]

Bob,

From your statements and mine, we both support Joe’s USHGRS.

In response to my question:

So Bob to be clear, it is your position that Jack should be required to provide web space and band width on hanggliding.org to Joe even though Jack does not believe in promoting Joe’s USHRS?

You said “No”.

So we are in agreement that even through both you and I support Joe’s USHGRS, Jack should not be forced to provide web space or band width to a program he does not believe in, Joe’s USHGRS.

Where is the injustice?

The injustice would be to force Jack to promote something he did not believe in even through you and I believe in it. You have agreed that Jack should not have to provide web space and band width to Joe’s promotion of the USHGRS since he did not believe in it.

The injustice would be to apply that same standard equally to Joe and Rick forcing them to provide rebuttal web space and band width in promoting paragliders and mini wings on their privately owned web sites.

The injustice would be to deny Joe open web space and band width on the worldwide internet in his promotion of his USHGRS. That is not the case. Joe is free to develop and promote his own programs on the worldwide web.

Joe has many outlets and opportunities to exercise his free speech rights without infringing on Jack’s free speech rights or property rights.

Joe got banned, shake it off and move on promoting what you believe in.

Unjust, hardly.

14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Matthew 10:14

[Bob Kuczewski]

Michael, I think you are confusing fairness and law. They are different. People have a legal right to be unfair to other people. A parent may leave all of their wealth to the least deserving child. That's their legal right, but it does not always satisfy our common sense of fairness.

As a forum operator, I am painfully aware that I am providing a platform where people might post comments and ideas that may conflict with my own. That is a reasonable expectation that people have when they join a forum.

But beyond expectations, forums also have rules for conduct (such as the Bob and Scott rule). Fairness incorporates the notion that those rules will at least be followed. There was no rule stating that Joe could not promote USHGRS. So even if we accept that Jack could make such a rule (the Bob and Scott and USHGRS rule), it had not been made at the time of Joe being banned.

Having said all of that, if it is your opinion that Joe was fairly (justly) banned, then we clearly disagree on the term "justly". You seem to want to rob the word "justly" of its unique meaning and lump it into the word "legally". They are not the same.

[magentabluesky]

Bob, ask Joe if he wants to carve out rebuttal web space and provide band width in the domains he “owns” to promote paragliding and mini wings.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I'll reply in the other topic ("Michael Grisham's Cease and Desist Request") which already has web space and bandwidth carved out for this discussion.