Posted by REEEality on June 03, 2013 at 19:33:01:
In Reply to: Re: Re: WTMJ makes legal claim that Charlie Sykes is posted by Sue Wilson on June 03, 2013 at 15:20:53:
Sue, this linked court document was primarily an arguement wrapped in the defense protection of the Fairness Doctrine #which was still in enforceable existence then#. Damn near 100% of this arguement is based on that principle/regulation which is no longer in effect. This court ruling is almost 50 years old!
You can't make your point by digging up any old court document to use as 'relevant standard' or a point of precedence when the basis of the arguement is no longer valid. Why not?
Let me make an extreme comparison for affect. It that would be like arguing that you do, in fact, have the right to hold persons in your possession - against the person's will - because you dug up an 1825 court document of a prosecuted and subsequently convicted runaway slave. You paid fair price to his family when he was a minor and you feel that you own him fairly. You have court precedence showing a willingness almost across the board of turning such "property" back to it's owner.
Again, radical and dramatic, but it proves my point. If you can provide POST Fairness Doctrine court rulings on the point then I will fully mea culp myself and yield the arguement in your favor.
Post a Followup