Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-14-08 09:00 PM
Response to Original message |
| 53. Effectively it is a in-kind political contrution of air time. |
| -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 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread