Posted on 07/02/2008 7:28:04 AM PDT by Crush
Democrat Representative Louise Slaughter is actively trying to revive the Fairness Doctrine. She is not alone, she has the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with Senators Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Dianne Feinstein.
What is the Fairness Doctrine? It is archaic rule that forces television and radio stations to air both sides of controversial issues. If this is reenacted, conservative and Christian talk radio programs are unlikely to be aired due to the demand for equal time, which the station is forced to provide - free of charge. Proponents in the past have admitted that the goal of the Fairness Doctrine is not providing both sides of an issue, it is to silence conservative and Christian talk radio.
John F. Kennedy said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” That is precisely why the Fairness Doctrine is on the rise again - elements of our government fear an informed electorate.
In the summer of 2007, Representative Mike Pence introduced H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act (BFA). The BFA, if passed, would forever end the threat of the Fairness Doctrine. The BFA was sent to committee, and Speaker Pelosi has already stated that she will not allow the bill to come to a vote.
But ‘We the People’ have an opportunity to defeat the Fairness Doctrine. Rep. Pence has started a discharge petition, which if he can collect 218 signatures, will force the BFA to an up-or-down vote on the floor of the House. And whenever freedom comes to an up-or-down vote in the House, freedom always wins. No Democrat so far has signed the petition, despite the fact that 113 Democrats voted in favor of a one-year moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine last year.
It is up to us. These politicians must have the support of their constituents in order to get reelected, and they know that. If we make our voices heard, we can force their hand on this issue. We must make our government know that we will not allow them to strip us of our right to free speech.
This isn’t the Soviet Union in the Cold War, this is the United States of America! We have the right to free speech, but when the government regulates what we can or can’t hear, is our speech free anymore? Even broadcaster Dan Rather said, “Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost.”
Contact your US Representative and tell them that to sign the discharge petition for the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
But we must act now. If we cannot move forward with this Congress and President, we are facing a far more uphill battle with the next group.
If we could just force the lamestream networks to give equal time to non-Marxist points of view...
Fascism is alive and well, and thriving, in the USA. And the amazing part of it is that the leftists that are pushing it have managed to convince millions that conservatives fighting to stop it’s spread are the ones who are fascist. I fear what this country will look like in 25 years. I can’t help but see that there are some very real parallels between 2008 USA and 1932-32 Germany.
“how to stop the fairness doctrine”
in november, vote left-wing, communist liberals out of office.
end of fairness doctrine.
IMHO
The FCC abolished it in 1987 because it was in violation of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . .)
The First Amendment hasn’t changed in over 200 years - how is the Fairness Doctrine somehow not in violation today when it was in violation in 1987?
“The First Amendment hasn’t changed in over 200 years”
What about the “evolving standards of decency in a maturing society”?
I thought that justified any and all unconstitutional actions by the government.
/sarc (needed?)
Yup! America is in a deep apathy stage.
Drudge is running a story on Limbaugh right now. He points to a New York Times magazine cover story on Rush. The cover shows a sinister Rush with the tag line, “Rush is just getting warmed up”. This is laying the ground work of fear that will be required to institute the fairness doctrine.
bookmark
By then, ripley, it will be too late. The Republican party is in a tailspin. It will take another great conservative leader to save it.
In the meantime, all we need are 22 more signatures on Mike Pence’s discharge petition. Democrat or not, they cannot afford to have their name on a roll call voting against freedom. They will have to support it if it comes to a vote. That is our weapon, but it won’t happen unless we light a fire under the politicians who haven’t signed yet.
Man, you got that right? When I had World History back in the late '40 we learned quite a bit about Nazi Germany while it was still fresh in our minds. .
Nope. But it will be if the Obamassiah is elected.
Fairness Doctrine, nationalized healthcare, nationalized energy, repressive taxation, massive wealth distribution... Get ready Comrade, this is what we'll get with him!
And it NEEDS to be stopped.
Here’s a link to an article by the other side, I suggest strongly you read it as well so you can see what you’re up against:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
(Excerpt)
Published on Saturday, February 12, 2005 by FAIR
The Fairness Doctrine
How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back
by Steve Rendall
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti–John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04).
But if fairness mattered little to Sinclair, the news that a corporation that controlled more TV licenses than any other could put the publicly owned airwaves to partisan use sparked discussion of fairness across the board, from media democracy activists to television industry executives.
Variety (10/25/04) underlined industry concerns in a report suggesting that Sinclair’s partisanship was making other broadcasters nervous by fueling “anti-consolidation forces” and efforts to bring back the FCC’s defunct Fairness Doctrine:
Sinclair could even put the Fairness Doctrine back in play, a rule established in 1949 to require that the networks—all three of them—air all sides of issues. The doctrine was abandoned in the 1980s with the proliferation of cable, leaving citizens with little recourse over broadcasters that misuse the public airwaves, except to oppose the renewal of licenses.
The Sinclair controversy brought discussion of the Fairness Doctrine back to news columns (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04; L.A. Times, 10/24/04) and opinion pages (Portland Press Herald, 10/24/04; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 10/22/04) across the country. Legal Times (11/15/04) weighed in with an in-depth essay headlined: “A Question of Fair Air Play: Can Current Remedies for Media Bias Handle Threats Like Sinclair’s Aborted Anti-Kerry Program?”
Sinclair’s history of one-sided editorializing and right-wing water-carrying, which long preceded its Stolen Honor ploy (Extra!, 11–12/04), puts it in the company of political talk radio, where right-wing opinion is the rule, locally and nationally. Together, they are part of a growing trend that sees movement conservatives and Republican partisans using the publicly owned airwaves as a political megaphone—one that goes largely unanswered by any regular opposing perspective. It’s an imbalance that begs for a remedy.
From the OP: “It is up to us. These politicians must have the support of their constituents in order to get reelected, and they know that. If we make our voices heard, we can force their hand on this issue.”
I called my Dem congresscritter twice, and am also contacting my local radio stations to get them to talk about this, so others will call, as well.
They need to know that not even one Dem congresscritter signed Mike Pence’s Dispatch Petition to bring the Broadcast Freedom Act to the floor for an up or down vote.
“Fairness Doctrine, nationalized healthcare, nationalized energy, repressive taxation, massive wealth distribution”
And without talk radio, there will be no strong voices to complain.
Call your rep. today.
Here’s what I wrote to a local talk show host today (and I wrote a different one yesterday):
“Not even one Dem congresscritter signed Mike Pence’s Dispatch Petition to bring the Broadcast Freedom Act to the floor for an up or down vote. They are afraid of Nancy Pelosi, and answer to her, rather than their constituents, it seems.
Even the Dems who are against the so-called “Fair”ness Doctrine, won’t sign the Dispatch Petition. They need to hear from We the People. Maybe they need to be embarrassed into doing the right thing.
They only need 22 more signatures from our congresscritters on the Pence Dispatch Petition to bring the Broadcast Freedom Act to the floor for an up or down vote.
This is aimed at talk radio ONLY, not the newspapers or tv, including free tv, which also uses the public’s free airways. This is obviously taking away our First Amendment rights.
Here’s a great article about the so-called “Fair”ness Doctrine:
http://www.crushingchris.com/blog/?p=57
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.