how would you deal with it?

Would you argue for an exception to the First Amendment on the basis that this speech deserves no protection?

If so, how does one define hate speech?

Another idea that I have heard is to require stations to provide free time for political ads from all parties as a condition of licensing.

While this would not significantly lessen the ability of hate talkers from spreading their message, it might allow people to at least here competing views.

As odious as racist hate speech is, the responsible way to fight it is with diverse opinions. I am very uncomfortable banning speech.

Perhaps something could be instituted to ensure more fact-based information being broadcast -- radio, TV and print.

It's the "opinion" proliferation, versus fact-based journalism, that I feel has led to the cesspool of misinformation that has grown and grown since the late 80's.

There used to be a law at least back in the 70's about "truth in advertising"; it may still be in place but isn't reinforced much when it comes to advertising.

But it seems to me there should be a way to return media to being more fact-based instead of the batshit conspiracy theories that proliferate along with outright lies. I don't know how that would happen given the myriad so-called "news" sources that aren't exactly fact-based, but I'm throwing it out there anyway.

Even diverse opinions aren't going to restrict that, though I agree diverse opinions are better than what exists now.

We need to go back to the equal time policies required under Fairness.

can you give an example of how they supposedly "dominate our media"?

Banning content would be a non starter for me. But maybe you have some other ideas?

It's posted here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028064931

It just involves the government deciding who is deemed "responsible" enough to respond to speech you don't like.

The pure essence of White privilege. Tone deaf and clueless.

You may be OK with the government deciding what can be said in the media...I'm not.

Not sure why as its been tried a few times. I guess we as a group listen to music in the cars.

That's when they don't totally eclipse the medium like Rachel Maddow and Al Franken.

Stephanie Miller was enjoying great ratings in the LA area and was pulled for Limbaugh who got terrible ratings. The corporate owners will take the loss of listeners to get liberal talk off the air and replace it with wingnut hate. They've successfully divided America and held us to their backwards, conservative agenda.

And then it was taken off and replaced with right wing slush. Switched to sirrius satellite to get left leaning radio. They did this right before the 2012 election. The corporate owned radio media does not want us to listen to left ideas. Air America failed because it was managed badly by people with no radio experience.

I listen seven days a week.

the 1949 federal rule that radio and television stations present contrasting views on controversial subjects of public importance, like the television show conservative commenter William F. Buckley hosted, "Crossfire" (1966-1999).
When the Fairness Doctrine was disregarded in the 1980s, the rise of the RW Hate Radio industry began with Rush and other talkers.

In 1996 the broad Telecomm Act further deregulated the media and stimulated 'infotainment' in place of straight news and enabled media consolidation. With the Act previous limits on ownership were lifted; for example, rules that one company could not own and influence all the media in an area- the local newspaper, radio and television station were eliminated.

Deregulation has allowed Media concentration by corporations like Clear Channel which took over 1,200 US radio stations in 2012. Liberal media doesn't have the resources to compete and even in major urban areas like San Francisco, Portland, Albuquerque and Atlanta there are no progressive radio channels now according to what I've read, or extremely few. Venues for alternative progressive and liberal news are available however on the internet and a few radio programs.

Fox television which is free, unlike MSNBC, is everywhere. In many communities it's the only channel available. Fox is also the channel most commonly aired in convenience stores, car dealerships/auto shops, motels, banks, businesses and military bases. As well, Rush Radio has agreements to broadcast sports events with about 90 American colleges.

Changing the balance of American media ownership and content would mean taking on the FCC and restoring the Fairness Doctrine and The Sherman Anti Trust (Monopoly) Act.

In 1983 the majority, 90% of media that we read, hear and see in the US was owned by more than 50 companies.
Now 90% of all US media- newspapers, radio, television, magazines and publishers, is dominated by 5 giant corporations:

ABC (Disney); CBS (VIACOM); NBC (Comcast); CNN (Time Warner) and Fox (News Corp).

- THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE -

I'm a white liberal, and I hate the amount of shit right-wing radio we hear every day. I've never heard any other self proclaimed liberal claim they want Rush, Hannity or Savage on the air.

The problem is, it's not a "freedom of speech" issue, anymore than when Right-wingers complain that celebrity spokespersons getting dismissed from their jobs for making racist, hateful statements is a "freedom of speech" issue.

They just shrug their shoulders and claim nothing can be done about it. Any solutions offered are met with a barrage of flimsy freedom of speech arguments that apparently only apply to racist White people and not to tax paying Blacks and Hispanics.

WOW.

In your last thread it was more than adequately explained to you why your suggestion was a poor one.

You're wallowing it. Racist hate speech? Not my problem! The important thing is racists get their say even if Blacks and Hispanics have to pay for it.

You don't seem to be too concerned about women or gays, in any of your posts.

Allows you to espouse your racist undertone ramblings about white privilege.

The first amendment is an important one, I don't care if they're white black brown yellow, if they pay for their airspace, they can say whatever they want.

Just like I can ignore you, I can ignore them.

It's hours and hours of propaganda for all the local races as well. I've seen it firsthand in VA. Hannity will do exclusives with local Republicans and fellate them like a 2 bit whore. BTW- I called Hannity a 2-bit whore and he was so upset he hit me with a sack of quarters

Some people will rec anything.

What's so horse shitty about it?

no fear of violence, ever

used to disparage you and your family on the airwaves you pay for.

Must be nice!

alrighty then!!!

Why stop there... Who controls the banks?

Are you hearing it on NPR or other tax funded outlets?

Private radio stations pay for their license and spectrum use, they don't get tax dollars for it.

I hate them, but let's keep the debate and arguments at least honest and factual. I don't see how claiming your tax dollars are used to fund it is either.

Cain and West are effective speakers for the right, whether we like it or not. The black man is more than someone's puppet.

They are more than just a skin color.

Talk radio is a hotbed of hate speech, period. We've all been in this since when? The late '80s when Limpballs started flapping his gums? None of us are immune: liberals, blacks, gays, feminazis, academia, Muslims, "illegals," etc.

Or are you new to talk radio?

Join the debate, crush them with your ideas, not the brute force of government.

Let's make this very simple, if you do not "cling to freedom of speech" then you are not a liberal, in any sense of the word. You are an authoritarian, embrace it.

I don't think you'll find many people wanting to pass a constitutional amendment for the government to regulate what people find offensive.

Even if you banned it from the air waves they could just make an internet radio show. Literally anyone with a computer can make their own podcast.

Is often an excellent indicator of an authoritarian and someone with a very poor understanding of US law or ethics.

In all sorts of ways.

Your tax dollars don't go to support racist speech, as suggested up thread. The electromagnetic spectrum is just the set of frequencies that can be used. The government regulates who can broadcast at certain frequences in the radio spectrum, how much drift their signal can have, how closely they're spaced in terms of frequency and geography. That's about it. It doesn't regulate content, and it doesn't charge for use of the spectrum.

It regulates the airwaves in that sense by selling or otherwise granting the right to use certain frequencies. The government granted permission freely for a long time--it was like granting title to federal lands if you used the land. Now the licenses are traded on the open market. Frequency rights with large ranges are very expensive in large urban areas. The broadcast equipment is owned by the broadcasters, who have to have it inspected. The government still lets you broadcast for free if you use unclaimed frequencies at low wattage. When my high school set up its radio station it was fairly simple. It applied for a bit of the spectrum, call letters, got both, and started to broadcast.

The AM spectrum was parceled out in the same way but it's cheaper to get a license because, well, it's less suited to music. Not the same level of fidelity, and it doesn't do stereo. There's less competition.

But the same spectrum that broadcasts Limbaugh also broadcasts, in my area, Vietnamese and Chinese channels. There are numerous Spanish-language channels, mostly Mexican-oriented but not always. There's an Africa-centered tv station (it's digital, so it's a stack of "channels&quot , and it's certainly not kind to whites. As bad as Limbaugh? Dunno--I don't listen to either and find both beyond the pale. But both should be allowed to bid as long as they meet content-neutral requirements. They have to serve a portion of the public (not a majority, and nobody gets a real veto), they have to have so much local programming, they have to have so much educational programming for kids, I think (at least they used to).

The population pretty much votes on how the spectrum gets used. The grunge station I liked in Los Angeles didn't last 6 months until one day my alarm went off and I found myself listening to hip-hop. The classical station I liked in Jersey vanished and went "classic rock." It's the same with talk radio--but the rent's cheaper.

Nobody regulates the Africa-centered tv station's content and requires that some white guys be allowed to tell the black audience how bigoted and hateful they are, and they shouldn't. It wouldn't be any different saying the same things to Limbaugh listeners. They're part of the public, too, and not every frequency has to meet the standards set by every member of the public.

The Fairness Doctrine was something not everybody liked, and was pretty much a joke as far as I remember. There'd be somebody saying something that disagreed with the station's viewpoint or take on a story, and pretty much only die-hards cared one way or another. The turnaround time made it so any rebuttal was stale. It provided an extra-long bathroom break. But it made a certain sense when there were 4 tv stations in a city, or perhaps fewer. Then one or two viewpoints could monopolize tv news. (When I moved to Eugene, Oregon, there were 2 tv stations. One station carried two networks.) Now I can get 50 channels over the airwaves, hundreds by cable (if I got cable). I don't have to worry about my viewpoint being presented. All I have to do is find it. And I don't have a right to hear my viewpoint on every station, or ensure that others hear my viewpoint, and feel no burning desire to make sure my voice is heard. My response to offensive speech is to ignore it if I can't rebut it. But nobody says I have to rebut it in the same medium. If enough people ignore a broadcaster, it'll go away. Which is why "my" grunge station didn't survive--the owners got a deal they couldn't turn down.

Note that the FCC is out of the "freely granting" phase and is trying to free up more space for more stations and things like wireless communications. It's not going to seize the spectrum back, however--the last time it did something like that was forcing conversion of tv stations from analog to digital it was a mess. http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2015/03/articles/want-a-new-fm-station-fcc-proposes-fm-auction-in-july-lists-channels-to-be-sold-and-imposes-a-freeze-on-certain-applications/

Most radios come with tuners which allow the radio to be set to many different stations on both the AM and FM dials.

You show no concern for sexism, no concern for anti LGBT messages.

Women are 50% of the population, you know. You don't seem too concerned about how women are portrayed, and I will guess that women and gays are not portrayed any better in black or latino cultures, or whatever culture you ascribe to.

Cry me a fucking river, dude.

I'm white, and I choose not to listen to hate radio. I also choose not to listen to music that I don't enjoy, and I don't watch television shows that I don't like.

This isn't 1960. It's 2016. There are so many choices out there, that we can all find the content that we prefer, without keeping other people from the content that they prefer.

Liberals are responsible now for racist RW talk radio, and enable/endorse it? What an absurd assertion.

jaws tend to drop

"Completely tone deaf many White liberals cling to "freedom of speech" when any attempt for the public owned airwaves represent any other opinions other than those of White racists. "

Here we go again! You know what? I bet there is plenty of airwave space available for a new AM radio station, why not start one up yourself rather than complaining that there is only right-wing stuff on AM? It's not like each and every AM radio freq. is being used by the right wing.

Let's stop worrying about getting the government to control technology that came and pretty much went last century.

We sure appreciate that. Yessiree we do.

I'm sure the OP will take you sagacious words to heart, get a crystal radio kit, and start broadcasting tomorrow.

to provide countervailing wisdom on questions of the fairness doctrine and similar policies!

In fact, one could say that it is my own, personal fairness doctrine!

My point about the OP's future AM radio career is that there is plenty of unused public bandwidth, so it's not like right-wingers have completely blanketed the spectrum. Liberal alternative radio stations could compete if they wished to. The fact that they do not really exist just says (to me) that liberals don't really listen to AM radio.

What really gets me, though, is the OP questioning the morals or even party affiliation of those who merely disagree with him. If you try to disagree, he immediately just spews out "white privilege" over and over again, it seems.

Like i said, I am sure many who post here are glad to have you among us.

Have a swell day!

"But NOBODY listens to the radio!" is the most common excuse I hear for letting evil people take over our commons.

To which I say: "Okay then, how would you feel if we take some obscure national park you love to visit and let the Westboro Baptist Church take it over and plaster their signs everywhere? Because people hardly use that park, so why should you be offended if every time you visit your favorite nature spot you see Westboro hate speech everywhere? Who cares?"

Radio waves are the commons, and the incompetent, corrupt FCC (yes, FCC, you are nothing more than drooling goons who do NOTHING for the American people) along with apathetic US citizens have let the haters have their commons with nary a peep.

Free speech? HAHAHA!!!! Try giving your opinion on an American talk show! HA! The nation voted for Obama, but I have not heard an Obama voter or supporter say a WORD on American hate radio in YEARS. If you are a Democrat or liberal, you are NOT allowed on the majority of radio stations owned by WE, THE PEOPLE.

None of the radio stations spewing this hatred are living up to their lease agreements with the American people, but the American people are too busy taking selfies and the individual members who make up the FCC are too busy sucking the dicks of corporate radio executives to do anything fair or courageous to stop it. Yum Yum.