Say Anything Blog

Did we speak out when the same thing happened to Ron Paul in NH?  If the courts can order a network to include a candidate [or exclude one], then they can virtually control the news from the bench. NBC is doing the right thing here. A free press means a free press, otherwise the courts can shut down anyone, including Rush or Glen Beck.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Pparets: Here! Here! Freedom of the Press, Speech or any other Right either applies to everyone and fairly or it can be taken away from anyone. While it is often fun to watch an evil ox get gored, it isn’t much fun when we are the ox.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Earlier this evening, the Nevada State Supreme Court, in an emergency session, overturned the district court ruling, thus allowing NBC to exclude Representative Kucinich from this evening’s debate.

Personally, I think that both NBC’s “freedom of the press” argument and Kucinich’s “freedom of speech” argument are essentially gratuitous, as neither applies here.  No state or federal law has been violated by NBC’s decision to exclude Kucinich, so the district court ruling was clearly a stretch.  By the same token, Kucinich’s free speech rights were not diminished by any act of government, again either state or federal, so he has no claim under the First Amendment… no more so than I would have a similar claim against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for not printing my letter to the editor.

It may not seem “fair”, but most of the judicial mischief that has occurred over the past half century or more came about because judges have taken it upon themselves to change the law in the interest of being more “fair"… a word which, to my knowledge, does not appear in the Constitution.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

In the final analysis, NBC is a private business, and if it makes a bad business decision, it suffers the consequences as financial loss.  The govt has no excuse to interfere in this business transaction, any more than it has a right to determine who gets to participate in a game show on NBC.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

In the final analysis the airways belong to the public.

God help NBC if Kuchy winds up heading some House communications
commitee.

God help NBC if Kuchy winds up heading some House communications commitee.

Yes; as we have seen with Clintonco, the Dems use the power of govt to take revenge on their political enemies.  Good reason to keep them out of power.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

In the final analysis the airways belong to the public.

Hardly a proper reason for a state court to dictate who and what should be aired.  Besides, I believe the debate was sponsored by MSNBC, a cable division of NBC and its parent, GE.  FCC regulations for cable are considerably different than they are for broadcast TV.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

In the final analysis the airways belong to the public.

Maybe “the public” will buy some TV time for Kucinich.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108: Duh! With the exception of PBS and NPR, all media are private businesses. None-the-less, the authors of the 1st Amendment had them specifically in mind when insulating them from government control. Your argument, carried a little further, would fit nicely into the claim that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to bear privately owned guns.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

None-the-less, the authors of the 1st Amendment had them specifically in mind when insulating them from government control. Specifically?  I see no mention of networks in the Constitution. Your argument, carried a little further, would fit nicely into the claim that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to bear privately owned guns. This makes no sense.  In fact, if you want to apply my argument to guns(?); it would say that the govt can’t force private gun manufacturers to sell to people they don’t want to.  Those people would simply go to the competition.

I’m simply saying that a private business shouldn’t face govt coercion to sell to anyone they don’t want to sell to.  It’s called freedom.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.