3 ms·
The Equal Time rule was strictly for political candidates. Perhaps you're thinking of the Fairness Doctrine, which only made sense when broadcast media were ve
by ConceptJunkie 8y ago
The Equal Time rule was strictly for political candidates. Perhaps you're thinking of the Fairness Doctrine, which only made sense when broadcast media were very limited.
There's got to be a good way to get Google to stop censoring one side of the political spectrum, but if we have to resort to legislation or regulation, we're doing it wrong.
If we can't, then I guess Google really is too powerful.
Edit: Google is evil. But Google is also free. If we can't counter the first without eliminating the second, then we have failed as a society.
- vkou 8y agoThe Fairness Doctrine never made any sense. It only required that contrasting viewpoints be presented for an issue of public import. You could satisfy it, by discussing, say, gun control, and presenting two contrasting viewpoints: One that all guns should be banned, and one that all guns, except for ones used by police and security guards should be banned. A distinction without much of a difference (That is well within the scope of very limited political orthodoxy) is a contrasting viewpoint.