Fighting The "Fairness Doctrine"
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Congress | Featured Stories — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Republicans should welcome this fight, not only as a way to motivate the base against the Democrats in Congress but as a way to return to first principles as well. Government control of the airways should be considered intolerable, especially in light of the most recent reports on media bias. Any revival of the "Fairness Doctrine" only serves to reinforce bias, take away diversity of opinion and place the heavy hand of government in a realm where the marketplace is supposed to reign.
In short, while the Fairness Doctrine is an utterly objectionable piece of legislation, fighting it should be a joy for Republicans. Here is a good piece of political land on which a flag can be staked and a battle can be waged.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame! — Comments (11) »
Fighting The "Fairness Doctrine" 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...the Republicans in the Senate welcome this. They probably have enough votes for it to push it through right now.
This isn't just an objectionable piece of legislation, it is wholly unconstitutional. "Liberals" will say "Oh, the Supreme Court said it was constitutional". This was the same court that gave us the Roe v. Wade boondoggle. Besides, the same people who think the present Court was wrong with the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" decision (and I've read them) have no problem with a reimplementation of the (Un)Fairness Doctrine.
A just war leads to a just peace and freedom. An unjust peace leads to death.
The "Fairness Doctrine" was essentially an FCC Rule, not law which makes it an even scarier proposition. Putting that type of control within the hands of a government agency is certain to make it a political tool. Not only was Reagan correct in rejecting this as an affront to free speech, but Pence has crafted a magnificent response by directly impacting the FCC should they seek to employ it (and by the way, you should call and support him).
The SCOTUS challenges were relatively narrow and in today's environment a more formidable challenge (with greater chance of success) would be mounted. The fact that broadcasters, credible journalists and an unusual collection of opponents have spoken out shows how despicable this effort is.
That Maurice Hinchey, Bernie Sanders and other Borderline Marxists hatched this plan at a conference headlined by Moveon.org should concern many. The roots of this are purely political and the aim is extra-Constitutional.
Why do we have more attempts to limit and test the boundaries of free speech from those proclaiming to hold the mantle on this issue? It is because their speech is specious; aimed at limiting the citizenries rights while providing seemingly plausible platitudes as a distraction. Anyone supporting this MORA legislation should be unceasingly loathed for their Consitutional disrespect
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Actually, it's unconstitutional, but I wouldn't burn down the house if it passed under the following scenario:
1. It applies not just to AM talk radio, but also FM news and commentary and ABCBSNBC including evening newscasts, morning "news" programs and 60 minutes.
2. I (or my stand-in) get controlling interest in the bureaucratic office that gets to decide what topics are covered and what would constitute "the other side".
Now I suppose DiFi and Dingy Harry would not be quite so interested were those two items included in the bill, but I can see a silver lining in an unconstitutional cloud if this were to pass.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
that it should be me.
After all, I don't know anyone else who is right on so many issues. I obviously have insight that others need.
:)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Of course the supporters of the fairness doctrine will tell you the MSM is fair and balanced already. It is only Rush Limbaugh and his cohorts that need to be smacked down and silenced.
The only reason Err America failed is it had too much competition already from NPR, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS etc...
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
WCFL was the Chicago 'Voice of Labor' but the Progressives railled against it as too authoritarian, Catholic and old-timey.
Not their idea of Labor. The Progressive believes that SEIU is a real Labor Union, because most Progressives never did a lick of real work in their lives and generally do NOT like working class people.
Let the market decide - if the Prgressives can get an audience then they will have one. No one wants to listen to a format dedicated to scab-picking and talking down the patrician nose at blue-collar dues paying, tax-strapped middle class.
Pat Hickey
Based on my experience working with the NAB, the Fairness Doctrine does nothing to expand diverse viewpoints. In fact, it does quite the opposite. It removes the incentive for local TV and radio stations to cover controversial issues and personalities. That leaves us with more Paris Hilton.
There is no such thing as a "Fairness Doctrine".
It is the "Government Censorship Ploy", and needs to be identifed clearly for exactly what it is, and piloried accordingly.
We need to shake out those extremists and enemies of liberty who would actually pursue censorship of free speech, and castigate and in no uncertain terms those who are actually for censorship.
"Fairness Doctrine" has undeserved and inaccurate implications in its name, and masks to at least some extent its true purpose of government censorship of free speech and airwaves.
The lefties supporting this are totally upset over possible governement listening in on terrorists at work. Yet these same people blithely talk about censoring real Americans in the course of their excercise of the Constitution.
Fie on them, and defeat!