fairness doctrine being repealed was the single most damaging event in the past 50 years
>>18502609The what
>>18502609>the single most damaging event in the past 50 yearsdebatable
>>18502609That was removed in '87, yet it was a Democrat Congress that agreed to its repeal.
>>18502609Isn't the fairness doctrine unconstitutional for going against the 1st amendment?
>>18502645corporate licenses are (or were) only issued by the state for the benefit of the public (in theory) so they can be held to rules for that purpose
>>18502624>The FCC vote was opposed by members of Congress who said the FCC had tried to "flout the will of Congress" and the decision was "wrongheaded, misguided and illogical".[38] The decision drew political fire, and cooperation with Congress was one issue.[41] In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the fairness doctrine,[42] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. In 1991, another attempt to revive the doctrine was stopped when President George H. W. Bush threatened another veto.[43]all under the watchful eye of republican presidents
>>18502657https://www.cato.org/blog/when-conservatives-forget-history-fairness-doctrineGee, I wonder why republicans would be against a policy created by democrats, upheld by democrats, and that was almost one sidedly applied against republicans and conservatives to the benefit of democrats. Not to mention that the core principle behind the Fairness Doctrine is almost blatantly unconstitutional in it's breach of the 1st amendment, even if it wasn't weaponized by democrat presidents to muzzle their opposition, and basically any Supreme Court composition besides the Warren Court would probably strike it down as unconstitutional.
>>18502610It was the law that said you can’t just fill your paper with left wing agitprop and call it opinion pieces.
>>18502668>you have to tell both sides of the issue>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE T-THIS IS TARGETED AGAINST US W-WE'RE BEING ATTACKED THIS ISN'T FAIR NOW I CAN'T TELL MY 80 IQ REDNECK AUDIENCE THAT ALL THE DEMONRATS ARE COMMIES THAT WANT TO DESTROY THE COUNTRYrightoids and their persecution complexes are wild lmao
>>18502689Yeah man, just name it "fairness act," because people like you are too retarded to know what it actually entails, and even half a century later they still don't.
>>18502699kek you are so seething, it's hilarious
>>18502609The problem with fairness doctrine was that politicians could potentially abuse it by mandating only people who are in favor of them are allowed to have a platform. You can easily argue a journalist is being untruthful just because they don't agree with you. You think journalism is a joke today with people constantly lobbying them to lie? It would've been even worse with fairness doctrine.
Who decides what's "true"? How is this determined?This policy could just as easily negate the truth as protect it. It is better to allow multiple perspectives than mandate only one, no matter how true you are convinced it is.
>>18502611>/pol/tards think Northwestern Europeans would still immigrate to the US if it wasn't for this Pretty much all North and Western Europeans today see the USA a downgrade in quality of life, and that's due to policies that Right Wing White Americans support. No Nordic, German, French, British or Irish man wants to send their kids to School Shooting Land.
>>18502708>It would've been even worse with fairness doctrine.except it wasn't? it's not a coincidence that 24/7 news networks, the most evil companies on the planet, were created shortly after its repeal.
>>18502721the point isn't wanting white migrants, nobody really wants any migrants, what matters is that non white migrants were not allowed. and hypothetically, if america had remained 90% white (more like 99% in most places and blacks segregated to their containment zones) then america would be a much more desirable place to live
>>18502733The funny thing is that even if the 1924 immigration act had never been repealed latinos and black caribbeans could still immigrate to the U.S as the act placed no restrictions on immigration from the American continent. The reason this wasn't an issue back then was because Latin America and the Caribbean were very underpopulated compared to today (in 1924 the U.S had a population equal to or even higher than the entirety of all other American countries bar Canada combined, today Brazil and Mexico combined already surpass the U.S in population).
>>18502769How come the Central and South American population exploded
>>18502721The U.S already had a self-sustaining White population, the main point of the pre-1964 immigration acts was preventing the entry of niggers, jews, chinks and jeets.
>>18502772The spread of modern medicine meant that children no longer died en masse of diseases like measles, malaria, smallpox, yellow fever, cholera, etc, which lead to a period of 30 to 50 years where the average latina woman still kept rural breeding patterns of shitting out 6+ kids on average, but now all or almost all of the kids survived instead of half or less. In parallel to that, the green revolution massively increasing farming productivity ensured that these countries had enough food to actually feed their exploding populations, so there was no threat of famine countersignaling families to stop having children as soon as possible.
>>18502609you need it back, faggot.without it we get to call you a faggot and maybe prevent future generations from contracting your disease.
>>18502733I would bet any amount of money you're not white
>>18502772In Brazil's case, industrialization and urbanization really kicked off in the 1940s onwards and it's basically just the same phenomen that every first world country experienced but in a Continental sized landmass like Brazil, hence 200+ million people.Brazil's birthrates are actually similar to European ones nowadays however, it's an ageing population whose momentum is running out of steam and will begin to shrink.
>>18502784It's not like the Fairness Doctrine is even relevant nowdays given that television is dead and that any attempt to apply something similar on the internet would not only be impractical,but also almost certainly considered unconstitutional and striked down by the Roberts court.
>>18502816It's kind of insane to think that back in the 20s the U.S had a population 3 times larger than Brazil's and 10 times larger than Mexico's
>>18502825Late 19th century, it still seemed inevitable the white race would win the biodiversity bowl.So ending USAID is the best thing that happened for white nationalism in more than a century.
>>18502668>and that was almost one sidedly applied against republicans and conservatives to the benefit of democratsRelease the files.
>>18502726>correlation = causationPerhaps this has more to do with technology than policy no?Regardless, OP would change his tune on fairness doctrine the second a politician he doesn't like starts shuffling the staff at the FCC. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, that's why fairness doctrine was abolished.
>>18502938>% of whites in US continues to decline year over year>uhm acksually we're winning!lol
>>18502816What about Mexico, most LatAm migrants aren't coming from Brazil
>>18503655Largely the same as in Brazil, but because Mexico took longer to modernize and industrialize, received far less immigrants and suffered a devastating population loss of around 20% in the 1910s (Mexican Revolution + Spanish flu) today Brazil's population is 60% larger than Mexico's, despite the fact that when both countries became independent around 200 years ago Mexico's population was 20% higher than Brazil's (and no, this had nothing to do with the fact that Mexico had a larger territory at independence, 99% of the Mexican population already lived in the territory Mexico controls today). And of course, a significant chunk of Mexico's population migrated to the U.S,
