You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On What Grounds Can a Court Force MSNBC To Include Kucinich in Their Debate? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 06:57 PM
Original message
On What Grounds Can a Court Force MSNBC To Include Kucinich in Their Debate?
Advertisements [?]
It really doesn't bother me that much, the only big story about him being there, will be the fact that he sued to get in the door.

But it is troubling to me that a judge can compel private entities to include someone in their private functions or risk being shutdown by the government. Not exactly a road I like treading upon.

It seems as though there should be no equal time law coming into play since this is MSNBC, the cable station.

Its nice that you're happy Kucinich is being included, but the legal rationale for this is what really interests me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -On What Grounds Can a Court Force MSNBC To Include Kucinich in Their Debate? tritsofme  Jan-14-08 06:57 PM   #0 
  - on what grounds do they exclude him? because Harry Reid says so?  ursi   Jan-14-08 06:59 PM   #1 
  - Its their debate, they should be able to include or exclude whoever they want.  tritsofme   Jan-14-08 06:59 PM   #2 
  - His complaint raised a breach of contract claim  onenote   Jan-14-08 07:00 PM   #3 
  - I heard that the debate sponsors originally told Kucinich he could participate  JDPriestly   Jan-14-08 07:44 PM   #40 
  - PDF OF LAWSUIT:  mikelgb   Jan-14-08 07:01 PM   #4 
  - Breach of Contract. They invited he accepted. Relief: Specific Performance of Contract.  rug   Jan-14-08 07:09 PM   #14 
  - I cannot believe he cites online polls in trying to prove he's a serious candidate.  slick8790   Jan-14-08 08:55 PM   #52 
  - Here's a message from the cluephone:  Jim Sagle   Jan-14-08 07:01 PM   #5 
  - No.  tritsofme   Jan-14-08 07:04 PM   #6 
  - The airwaves ARE public  no name no slogan   Jan-14-08 07:06 PM   #8 
  - Yes, you are correct, the broadcast airwaves are public.  tritsofme   Jan-14-08 07:07 PM   #10 
  - And you approve of that sentiment and call yourself a Democrat? n/t  arendt   Jan-14-08 07:15 PM   #27 
  - Its reality.  tritsofme   Jan-14-08 07:18 PM   #28 
     - But, they are not just spending the cable fees...  arendt   Jan-14-08 07:25 PM   #32 
     - actually, I do want to live in a country with a press that isnt dictated to by the government  onenote   Jan-14-08 07:27 PM   #33 
        - I want to live in a country where the electorate isn't dictated to by five media corps...  arendt   Jan-14-08 07:32 PM   #36 
           - most communities have only one newspaper  onenote   Jan-14-08 07:42 PM   #39 
              - And that one paper will be owned by the same entity that owns all the other media...  arendt   Jan-14-08 07:57 PM   #44 
                 - sorry, but you're wrong about cable franchises and about newspapers  onenote   Jan-14-08 10:45 PM   #60 
     - The cable companies, however, usually broadcast a public interest  JDPriestly   Jan-14-08 07:45 PM   #43 
  - And most don't do jack shit for the public interest.  WHEN CRABS ROAR   Jan-14-08 07:19 PM   #29 
  - Cable/Satellite is not considered public airwaves . . .  wndycty   Jan-14-08 07:07 PM   #11 
  - Cable doesn't use the airwaves.  mycritters2   Jan-14-08 07:09 PM   #15 
  - You must have been born after Reagan repealed Equal Time...  arendt   Jan-14-08 07:08 PM   #13 
  - In the cable arena, yes, I think they can do whatever the hell they want.  tritsofme   Jan-14-08 07:09 PM   #17 
  - That's like regulating AM radio (which is Lowest Common Denom. crap)...  arendt   Jan-14-08 08:25 PM   #49 
     - shouting "fire in a crowded theater"? Give me a break  onenote   Jan-14-08 10:55 PM   #62 
        - Your post is a non-sequitur to your title...  arendt   Jan-15-08 07:39 AM   #68 
           - Let me try again.  onenote   Jan-15-08 03:14 PM   #78 
  - actually the "equal time" rules haven't be repealed  onenote   Jan-14-08 07:12 PM   #23 
     - Except when they deem the ads "inappropriate" or some other such excuse...  arendt   Jan-14-08 08:20 PM   #47 
     - if arnold's candidates didn't file complaints, its their fault  onenote   Jan-14-08 10:58 PM   #63 
     - I would not just call this news coverage.  FREEWILL56   Jan-15-08 12:01 PM   #73 
        - i agree that its problematic for news organizations to sponsor the debates  onenote   Jan-15-08 03:21 PM   #79 
           - Sorry, but the cable companies are getting it from the satellites  FREEWILL56   Jan-16-08 08:40 AM   #86 
  - 1) No one said we are ALL entitled to appear - just all Democratic candidates.  Jim Sagle   Jan-14-08 08:48 PM   #50 
  - How many people have properly filed to be Democratic candidates in NV?  tritsofme   Jan-14-08 09:01 PM   #54 
  - I found the list, there are 14 official candidates  tritsofme   Jan-14-08 09:11 PM   #58 
  - So how do you think the cable companies get that wonderful MSNBC  FREEWILL56   Jan-14-08 09:11 PM   #56 
  - self delete  FREEWILL56   Jan-14-08 09:11 PM   #57 
  - here's a response from the reality phone  onenote   Jan-14-08 07:05 PM   #7 
     - The airwaves ARE public  no name no slogan   Jan-14-08 07:07 PM   #9 
     - Sorry, but the courts have held that cable channels are not subject to the same  onenote   Jan-14-08 07:08 PM   #12 
     - MSNBC does not broadcast over the public airways n/t  cali   Jan-14-08 07:09 PM   #16 
     - See no. 15 above. nt  mycritters2   Jan-14-08 07:10 PM   #19 
     - I don't understand why you don't get this  tkmorris   Jan-14-08 07:11 PM   #22 
     - It is a private entity that has usurped a public function - i.e., retail politics  arendt   Jan-14-08 07:14 PM   #25 
     - rant away. it doesn't change what the law is.  onenote   Jan-14-08 07:14 PM   #26 
        - The original question was answered almost immediately. I am responding to...  arendt   Jan-14-08 07:19 PM   #30 
           - y'know, most newspapers are corporations too  onenote   Jan-14-08 07:25 PM   #31 
              - The first amendment protects speech. This incident is the stifling of speech.  arendt   Jan-14-08 07:28 PM   #34 
                 - In the strictest legal sense, your latter scenario describes reality.  tritsofme   Jan-14-08 07:30 PM   #35 
                 - Freedom of speech for everyone who can afford a cable subscription is reality? that's sick. n/t  arendt   Jan-14-08 07:34 PM   #37 
                    - Free speech means MSNBC gets to decide who they want in their debate.  tritsofme   Jan-14-08 07:37 PM   #38 
                       - "Freedom of the press for anyone who owns a press" is an old, sick joke.  arendt   Jan-14-08 08:05 PM   #45 
                          - Makes one wonder how many actual Democrats are here, doesn't it?  Jim Sagle   Jan-14-08 09:03 PM   #55 
                 - There's no first amendment issue here  MonkeyFunk   Jan-14-08 07:44 PM   #41 
                    - You are correct. I was responding to the misuse of the newspaper analogy and further misused it. n/t  arendt   Jan-14-08 08:10 PM   #46 
     - No they are NOT a private entity, they are PUBLIC.  Jim Sagle   Jan-14-08 08:54 PM   #51 
        - so in your dictionary, what is a "private" entity  onenote   Jan-14-08 11:00 PM   #64 
           - Your home is private. Your business is not.  Jim Sagle   Jan-14-08 11:46 PM   #65 
              - Why isn't my business "private"?  Hobarticus   Jan-14-08 11:48 PM   #66 
                 - Because it operates in the public domain.  Jim Sagle   Jan-15-08 12:55 AM   #67 
  - I doubt this would hold up on appeal, but it doesn't have to  calmblueocean   Jan-14-08 07:09 PM   #18 
  - I think its more likely that the judge ruled in DK's favor on his contract claim  onenote   Jan-14-08 07:14 PM   #24 
     - Video of the judge ruling here  calmblueocean   Jan-14-08 07:45 PM   #42 
  - on the grounds of sticking it to anti-kucinich cranks  Algorem   Jan-14-08 07:11 PM   #20 
  - Breach of contract? Seems to me they invited him, he accepted  hlthe2b   Jan-14-08 07:11 PM   #21 
  - contracts are not enforceable like this...  mckeown1128   Jan-15-08 08:02 AM   #70 
     - Injunction that cancels the debate; contempt charges if they ignore  hlthe2b   Jan-15-08 06:29 PM   #83 
  - How about we are a Democracy which depends upon an informed populace?  Bonobo   Jan-14-08 08:22 PM   #48 
  - Effectively it is a in-kind political contrution of air time.  Perky   Jan-14-08 09:00 PM   #53 
  - Section III, Paragraph 1 of the McGillicutty Clause. n/t  tabasco   Jan-14-08 10:00 PM   #59 
  - Here's another question: do they HAVE to ask him anything?  Hobarticus   Jan-14-08 10:51 PM   #61 
  - Corporatist Judges Require NOOO Legal Rationale For ANY Decisions They Make  DaLittle Kitty   Jan-15-08 07:49 AM   #69 
  - PRIVATE FUNCTION???!!!!!??????  JTFrog   Jan-15-08 08:08 AM   #71 
  - The government isn't running it.  tritsofme   Jan-15-08 02:45 PM   #75 
  - Don't like it, change it. Better than your snotty answer. n/t  JTFrog   Jan-15-08 08:40 PM   #84 
  - of course its private  onenote   Jan-15-08 03:31 PM   #80 
  - breach of contract?  LanternWaste   Jan-15-08 09:25 AM   #72 
  - Suppose the board of MSNBC decided they JUST didn't like HRC, and excluded her --  cloudythescribbler   Jan-15-08 01:32 PM   #74 
  - Are candidates compelled to show up?  MGKrebs   Jan-15-08 03:46 PM   #82 
  - On the grounds that a judge's opinion matters more than a weapons manufacturer's?  StefanX   Jan-15-08 02:50 PM   #76 
  - its a perfectly legitmate question  onenote   Jan-15-08 02:55 PM   #77 
  - Breach of contract? They agreed he'd be there, based on their criteria - then reneged.  robbedvoter   Jan-15-08 03:32 PM   #81 
  - private entities . . . private functions  elleng   Jan-15-08 09:01 PM   #85 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC