I need a Constitutional expert - Is the fairness doctrine constitutional if it’s effect is to hamper one side of the debate? Is it too vague to pass 1st Amendment muster b/c someone has to decide “fairness”, which is inherently subjective.
The Fairness Doctrine initially required that during the airing of controversial issues of public significance, if an “attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group,” the station must give timely notice to the attacked person or group and a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Additionally, it required that if a broadcast licensee endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate in a televised editorial, then that candidate must receive timely notice and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
However, the only laws still on the books associated w/the fairness doctrine are the political broadcasting provisions, §§ 312(a)(7) (reasonable access) and 315 (equal access, lowest unit pricing), and their implementing regulations.
Technically the Fairness Doctrine was only an advisory policy of FCC after 1980s research revealed that it had technically never been as part of the statute. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC; and to this day it has not been overruled.
However, in 1971 Congress made clear that § 315 applied to cable operators (§ 312(a)(7)) does NOT apply b/c revocation of license is punishment and cable operators are not licensed by the FCC, rather local franchising boards.
Hope that helps