"Fairness" at the Expense of Freedom?
Democratic push for return to Fairness Doctrine is a serious threat to free speech
By Sen. James Inhofe Posted in Congress | Fairness Doctrine | First Amendment | Policy — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
After reading Rob Bluey’s post “Senate Democrats Endorse Censorship” this morning on Redstate, I thought I would stop by and comment on the “Fairness Doctrine” debate. Thank you Rob and RedState for allowing me to join you today.
Imagine opening your newspaper and turning to the recently redesigned political section, with half the page dedicated to opinions our government deems important. Or imagine tuning into your favorite radio and television stations with programming carefully balanced between what you expected and government-sponsored opinions. Though it might sound more like a page straight out of George Orwell’s 1984, it is the remarkable reality of debate over a so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” And disturbingly, there are a growing number of Democrats in Congress who believe the federal government must regulate and control American media. In fact, just last night Senate Democrats killed an amendment I co-sponsored that would have put an end to the Fairness Doctrine once and for all.
Read on . . .
This debate over government control of the media and political discourse is not new to Washington. Established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present “contrasting points of view on controversial matters of public importance.” However, rather than promoting full and fair discussion of issues, the true effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to discourage controversial issues of any kind. Perhaps even more disconcerting, this “chilling effect” was exploited by strategists and politicians of both parties to further their political ends. The only Americans served by the Fairness Doctrine were the politicians themselves, who benefited from the limited access voters had to debate and discussion.
After challenges to its constitutionality and pressure from the Reagan Administration, the FCC policed itself in 1987, repealing the Fairness Doctrine after ruling it constituted a danger to free speech rights guaranteed in the first amendment. Not long after repeal of the doctrine, former FCC chairman James Quello argued, “the fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech."
Despite its repeal nearly two decades ago, a growing number of liberal politicians and left-wing activists have been pushing for a return to “fairness.” In fact, in recent weeks, several prominent Democrats, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, have joined the argument that government can, and should, regulate the media and market of ideas.
It’s no coincidence that since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine there has been an explosion in the number of broadcast outlets available to the public. What seems to concern my Democrat friends is the meteoric rise in the amount of “conservative” programming, especially in talk radio.
This past week marked the first legislative salvo in the debate over the Fairness Doctrine and the Senate leadership’s efforts to stifle free speech. On Friday, Senate Democrats led by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) objected to an amendment I cosponsored that would have prohibited the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. While it would appear the Democrat leadership is in favor of full and complete debate when it means using government power to force their opinions on our airwaves, they don’t share that same commitment to open debate on the Senate floor.
As James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation wrote, “regulating speech in order to alter its content is exactly the sort of meddling that the First amendment is meant to prohibit. It is simply not the job of politicians to ‘correct’ the mix of opinions being expressed in the marketplace of ideas, even if - and especially if – they disagree with those opinions.”
I for one think the American public will agree. In fact, I suspect that the very marketplace of ideas that so concerns my colleagues on the left will ensure the freedom of speech we cherish will not be constricted by the wishes of a few.
The Fairness Doctrine represents a serious threat to free speech and inexorably muzzles the expression of opinion. Issues and ideas, like candidates for public office, must stand on their own merits. In the marketplace of ideas, consumers, like voters in elections, will make the final decision on what is “fair.” Who can argue with that?
« Bank of America's Bailout Bill — Comments (13) | Dems send out trial balloon on Supplemental — Comments (19) »
"Fairness" at the Expense of Freedom? 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Court never fully struck down the Fairness Doctrine as unconstitutional. It limited certain applications of it, and tinkered with the edges, but it was never declared wholly and facially unconstitutional.
In fact, the case law would indicate that, while the doctrine cannot be applied to newspapers, the concept of limited airwave spectrum allows it to be imposed against radio broadcasts. Application against radio was questioned, but the holding that the limited availability of broadcast frequencies allows government to regulate the content of radio broadcasts has never been reversed by the Supreme Court.
The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated by the FCC itself, not the Courts. Of course, the makeup of the Court has changed drastically since the last Fairness Doctrine case in 1984 (in which the Court said that they would revisit the issue if the Doctrine had the "net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."). I can't see the current Court being inclined to uphold the Doctrine.
I am aware that there was really no official court challenge. My point is that if there was a question of constitutionality back then, then that question still holds, especially since it never hit the courts.
And I'm with you - I can't see them upholding it either. That's the saving grace about the whole thing. Now, how long it would be held up during its trip through the various levels of litigation? Who knows?
Well, in all likelihood, if the doctrine returned, it would be immediately challenged, and I would anticipate that the challenge would include a request to enjoin enforcement of the law until the constitutional issue is sorted out. That's usually how things seem to go these days, and in an area that regards Free Speech, I would anticipate that there would be no enforcement until it had run its course through the courts.
Thanks for stopping by RedState and thanks for fighting for free speech against the "Fairness Doctrine"
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
The problems started when it was agreed that the airways were a public commodity and limited. There are limited bandwidths (to some extent) but, that is no excuse to cripple the market with legions of lethargic bureaucrats.
If 101.1 wants to broadcast in an area of where 101.3 is broadcasting, fine. Let the market decide. One will fail; the other succeed.
And who is to say that without government mandated walls between frequencies, that the market wouldn't have already come up with ways to carry multiple signals on a single frequency or ways to eliminate cross-over when frequencies are too close? Digital TV has expanded the number of possible TV channel broadcasts already.
We are still stuck in the '50s as far as the FCC is concerned.
Obviously I don't endorse a fairness doctrine. The problem is with supporters of fairness doctrine they don't want to apply the doctrine fairly. I just don't like selective applications of the fairness doctrine against conservative talk radio. We should have had a fairness doctrine all along to combat the main stream media bias. Conservatives would have been much better with it. Again I don't support the fairness doctrine but if it was ever applied fairly on all media it would actually help conservatives. (I'm dreaming, I know.) Why isn't this ever brought up by opponents of the doctrine? A prime example is a main reason Err America failed is it had too much liberal competition already!
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Would we have been much better off with it? We would have undermined our principles in order to get out what was left of our message. It is hypocritical of us to call for limited government and individual freedom and then turn around and support government intervention when it is perceived to "help our side."
The reason the doctrine wasn't "applied fairly" is that the Doctrine was ruled to be unconstitutional as applied to newspapers. That was the right call under the First Amendment.
The validity of Fairness is on the concept that even though it is a restriction of speech, Congress was permitted to regulate where there was limited availability of a communication method (like the limited number of radio frequencies or the old broadcast TV channels). Newspapers are not so limited - the only thing that restricts the number of newspapers is the amount of money they can make and the number of readers they can attract.
The "limited availability" rationale was undermined by the courts prior to the FCC's voluntary repeal. Should the doctrine be resurrected, either by the FCC (under a future Democrat administration) or Congress, it will be on shaky ground to start, especially given the explosion in forms of communication since 1987.
if by being in the minority you are unable to stop the Fairness Doctrine just make sure to include CBS, NBC and ABC as they are using the public airwaves to push through their propaganda. I guarantee you if Republicans move to include them that you will an about face from the Democrats which you will be able to count in milliseconds.
I don't think even the U.S. Government can bail out Radio America. It seems that the dems are willing to give it a shot though.
My only question... where does Trent Lott stand on this issue??
there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress
--AuH2O--
and for your efforts to preserve free speech over the airwaves. I find your comment:
to be interesting. Why would the situation be any different now? This is still a blatant question of freedom of speech. If the Fairness Doctrine was unconstitutional then, it is now as well. Now I know our buddies on the left side of the aisle won't agree, but since a) we have Pres. Bush to veto any reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, and b) we have a Supreme Court that leans ever so slightly right, I would think we could successfully fight any efforts at reinstatement from the Dems.
Thanks again for your efforts!