Last thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine....

[Don A]

>> Why should I be allowed to attack Dan Billings on my radio station (and 
>> the
>> public's airwaves) and say viscious and untrue statements, without giving
>> you a way to respond?
>
> Dan has plenty of ways to respond without using your radio station to
> do it.  He can advertise on a competing station, for example.

Or buy newspaper space, I suppose.  That is if he can afford it.

Is the burden on him to have enough money to respond?

We have shifted the burden of being responsible from the broadcaster to an 
assailed individual?

>>He
could sue you for defamation (which should be fairly easy since he's
not a "public person" and you're conceding "untrue statements"). <<

So, in the Red Lion case, someone can use the public airwaves for false 
statements....and unless the agrieved indiovidual has the resources to 
respond, that's alright?