Posted on 08/12/2008 2:23:35 PM PDT by Rufus2007
Theres a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and government dictating content policy.
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices expanding the federal agencys oversight of Internet networks.
The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of a few isolated conservatives who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.
I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right, McDowell said. I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.
...(more w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessandmedia.org ...
“folks at the Huffington Post have to go too?”
Who do you think would be sitting on the thought police commission?
Are we going to give it back without a fight?
McCain unfortunately has said that he “does not know how to use the internet” or something like that. If that's true, he's unlikely to understand the issues or even to know what's going on.
Obama unfortunately does know what's going on, and given his thin-skinned attempts to regulate what can be said about him, he'll fer shur “do something” about the fairness doctrine and the web.
The FCC is supposed to regulate AIR WAVES and signals that go through the air.
The internet does NOT.
This is a very frightening prospect - but not nearly as frightening as the idea that a new liberal Congress may give the internet to international bodies. If they do that, then the FCC won’t have to regulate the net - the UN will do it for them.
And yes, who do you think will be judging what can and cannot be said on the net?
Like the second amendment case before the Supreme Court, the Fairness Doctrine and the extent of enforcement could be a flashpoint issue.
Warning. Government wants to control speech, and they think, thought. Got news for them. People like us will not let them do it.
That was a silly pretext for control even when it was adapted . My internet connection goes through the air as does my satellite TV .
Period.
Good one . They should put that part first .
Such dangerous beliefs should be expressly repugnant to every American who has a basic understanding of our heritage and Constitution. For an employed agent of the government to regard that atrocity with anything other than utter loathing is evidence of either his lack of understanding or his lack of respect for liberty and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Content will survive.
'EFF the fascists. And kiss my rabbit between the ears.
/johnny
During the days when the Fairness Doctrine was on the rule books, the Constitutional argument permitting the FCC to exercise some degree of content regulation was “scarcity of frequencies.” The theory went that anyone could start a newspaper but radio and TV frequencies were limited and hence the FCC could legitimately regulate content, at least to some degree. Limited content regulation was necessary, or so the argument went, to ensure that all voices were heard, not just the ones favored by a limited number of broadcast station owners. Hence broadcasters had and continue to have less First Amendment protection than print media, for example. (The equal time doctrine still applies to broadcast media, for example.)
There’s no legitimate way that one can argue that there’s a scarcity of Internet access or that without government intervention, all views would not be heard over the Internet. It’s far easier to set up a web site, for example, than to start a newspaper.
While one should never predict what the Congress or the Supreme Court will do, I don’t see how political content regulation of the Internet even comes close to passing Constitutional muster.
Of course, I also thought that regulating campaign contributions was an impermissible infringement upon political speech.
Jack
Will be, not could be.
This is more of McDowell’s pro-cable-industry FUD.
(( ping ))
bttt
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.