[Delacon]

 

PETITION TO BLOCK CONGRESSIONAL
ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

To: U.S. Congress, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States

Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances";

Whereas, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal of censoring talk radio by other means, and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs as the arbiters of "fairness" rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas;

Whereas, the U.S. experimented with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for 38 years - from 1949 through 1987 - during which time it was repeatedly used by presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism;

Whereas, the abandonment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech - starting with Rush Limbaugh - that revitalized the AM radio band and provided Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints;

Whereas, talk radio is one of the most crucial components of the free press in America, and is single-handedly responsible for informing tens of millions of Americans about what their government leaders are doing;

Whereas, it is a wholly un-American idea that government should be the watchdog of the press and a policeman of speech, as opposed to the uniquely American ideal of a free people and a free press being the vigilant watchdogs of government;

Whereas, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - either under that name, or using a new name and even more devious methods - represents a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and its re-imposition would constitute nothing more nor less than the crippling of America's robust, unfettered, free press:

 

                                SIGN THE PETITION at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=87882

 

Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.

[Delacon]

ping

[BobbyT]

Some speech is more fair than others.

[Kenny]

Rush should immediately switch parties, officially become a Democrat, and join some liberal groups. Then he can demand that they give some Republican conservative equal time.

[msrngtp2002]

This may appear to support this fairness doctrine thing but it really isn’t.

I say so what if they put this back into effect. I recall several totally liberal radio stations that couldn’t make enough money to stay in business. The clown in Minnesota that is still trying to steal the election is another fine example.

So the liberal message on talk radio just isn’t listened to - so people will listen to Rush then turn off the radio. Rush’s message (and the other conservative talkers) is actually a more reasonable message that carries meaning and logic. So those liberals tune into talk radio to hear their favorite liberal host (wherever that person could be found!). They listen until the theme shifts to the conservative view. Only the true believers will tune it out, but many will listen and change their thought process.

On the other side of that view how many conservatives do you really think will just jump right in bed with the liberal thought process? I say very few.

So in reality I think the one’s who will be harmed by the fairness doctrine are the owners of the radio stations and/or networks who will suffer from loss of advertising dollars. If I were purchasing ads on radio I would certainly require that my ads ONLY run during the airing of a conservative point of view and I imagine many who would be paying for advertising would do the same.

Finally just how long do we really thing this will last? Congressional elections happen every 2 years and I don’t thing that the electorate will stay home for the next one.

[Tunehead54]

Here we go! Divide and conquer is their strategy - they'll have so many hot button issues on the table that protesters on various issues will just be labeled fringe kooks and we'll lose on every front. I believe we need a unifying figure to command media attention ... anyone? :-(

"Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such."

[Nateman]

In theory, the Fairness Doctrine was designed to enhance political discourse

Its not by chance the license renewal period was shortened from 3 years to 6 months afterwards. In fact it was a successful effort by FDR to censor free speech on the airwaves, leading to multiple reelections of this stinking would be dictator, and hordes of ignorant followers who still labor under the illusion that this was a great man.

[Piquaboy]

Bringing that Fairness Doctrine to life would be a big mistake for the Rats.

[dbz77]

I wonder if liberal supporters of the Fairness Doctrine have any idea of how Republican administrations used it.

[newfreep]

bttt

[bert]

Here is a method of attack. Remaining on defense is a losing strategy.We must not complacently roll over and be slaughtered. The blood must be spread around.

Send this to your local talk shows and state legislators

Fairness

There is currently under way an effort to return the Fairness Doctrine that will in effect limit free speech on the public airways. The Federal Communications Commission can reinstate the rule with no action by the US Congress or the President. The thought is that utterances on the radio must be fair and that a second view must be given equal time.

The public airways are actually a spectrum that has been divided into numerous specific frequency ranges that are corridors along which a radio wave carrying information is transmitted.. This proposed action regulating the information carried is a Federal matter since the airways are considered to be part of interstate commerce and require a Federal license. The states have no say in the matter.

The purpose of this essay is to develop a logical thought pattern that will permit the various States to gain some control of intra state transmission of information. That would be particularly true of my State, Tennessee.

Within the State of Tennessee information is transmitted and transferred by several methods but in this piece consideration will be restricted to two, printed publications and cable TV.

All printed material be it newspapers manufactured within the state borders or magazines, CD’s, DVD’s, recorded tapes or other similar publications from numerous sources are transported on the Tennessee public streets, roads and highways. These transportation corridors are in every respect similar to the spectral corridors regulated by the FCC except the roadways are regulated by the state of Tennessee. It is there fore a very logical step to conclude that based on the logic of information flow regulation by the FCC over federally regulated corridors, a similar regulatory body can be established by the State to assure that fairness is achieved in information carried or transported on the state regulated corridors and roadways. Printed publications must be fair to be transported over public ways.

In a similar vein, the state of Tennessee should be able to regulate the use of rights of way that are actually part of the same streets, roads and highways noted above. These rights of way are heavily used for various purposes including the physical presence of fiber optic and coaxial cable that are in fact information corridors similar to the FCC regulated corridors that are the public airways. The cable companies transporting on the public rights of way should be subject to the same fairness regulations governing the printed media transported on the adjacent roadways. Cable information must be fair to be transported over public rights of way.

There is no difference. Printed media and cable TV information are both transported along public ways .There is no difference between printed media transported over public roads and voice utterances transmitted over radio waves. Thoughts are transmitted over public ways.

Then there is the question of the first amendment and free speech. It can be argued that such regulation is a violation of the First Ammendment to the Constitution. That is obviously not the case or the FCC would not be able to impose the Fairness Doctrine. There is no action in the regulation preventing the free exercise of the right to say what ever the writer or publisher or news commentator desires. They can say what ever they want with no fear of any retribution by the State of Tennessee. If they desire to propagate the speech using the public ways, then they are subject to fairness regulation. The precedent for the State regulatory authority is the FCC regulated Federal authority.

If the public ways are restricted, then how can the speech material be propagated? The answer is quite simple. If the speaker wants to sell his material, he can set up a place of business where the public can come and buy what ever is for sale. The speaker can also go into an out of door site and speak whatever comes to mind to all within earshot. His rights of free speech are not restricted by regulations of the transport of the medium packets. It is the transport of those information packets on public ways that is regulated.