Posted on 11/12/2008 9:05:45 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
Barack Obama’s transition team has tapped former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera, a longtime proponent of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," to head the team looking for the man or woman who will soon give Democrats a 3-to-2 advantage on the Federal Communications Commission.
It’s another troubling sign that Democrats are serious about trying to reinstate the long-defunct FCC regulation, which can more aptly be described as the "Censorship Doctrine" because of its chilling effect on free speech. In effect from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was an obstacle to open discussion of public policy issues on the radio; its removal in the Reagan years spawned the robust talk radio marketplace of ideas now enjoyed by millions.
While talk radio hosts often warned during the campaign that free speech could be trampled by an all-Democratic majority, the broadcast networks have failed to react to this dangerous threat to the First Amendment. A review shows the broadcast networks — whose affiliates could also be regulated — have failed to run even a single story mentioning the push for a new Fairness Doctrine.
The most recent mention of the Fairness Doctrine was on May 30, 2007, when in an interview on CBS’s The Early Show, Al Gore bizarrely called it a "protection" that was removed during the Reagan years.
But there has been news to report, as Democrats have been more than candid about their plans. On Election Day, for example, New York Senator Charles Schumer justified regulating political speech. "The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air," Schumer told the Fox News Channel. "You can’t say, ‘government hands off in one area’ to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent."
In late October, Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman told a New Mexico radio station how he "hopes" the Fairness Doctrine returns so radio will be more to his liking: "For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country. I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."
Democrats have launched various attempts to control of broadcast content since the Fairness Doctrine’s demise in 1987, but the push has become more insistent in the past couple of years. After the failure of a liberal immigration bill in 2007, Senator Dianne Feinstein told Fox News Sunday that she was "looking at" a new Fairness Doctrine because "talk radio tends to be one-sided....It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information." As with Schumer and Bingaman recently, none of the broadcast networks thought Feinstein’s threats worth reporting.
Journalists aren’t known for turning a blind eye to free speech issues. In 2003, ABC, CBS and NBC ran 33 stories on criticism of the Dixie Chicks for speaking out against President Bush and the Iraq war. ABC’s Jim Wooten darkly warned: "All this has reminded some of the McCarthy Era's blacklists that barred those even accused of communist sympathies for working in films or on television."
When Democrats first pushed to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1987-88, both the New York Times and Washington Post came down strongly on the side of free speech. In a June 24, 1987 editorial, the Post called the concept of a Fairness Doctrine repulsive:
"The truth is...that there is no ‘fairness’ whatever in the ‘fairness’ doctrine. On the contrary, it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined ‘balance’ of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include....The ‘fairness doctrine’ undercuts free, independent, sound and responsive journalism — substituting governmental dictates. That is deceptive, dangerous and, in a democracy, repulsive."
Now that the Left is gearing up to suffocate talk radio, the media’s First Amendment solidarity seems to have been eclipsed by their loyalty to the would-be censors of the Democratic Party.
We need to stop referring to this proposal at “The Fairness Doctrine” and characterize it as The 21st Century Equivalent to Bookburning”.
....Or civil warII in America.
Loss of free speech, Loss of the ability to trust in voting not being corrupted by deliberate design of one party,
Loss of the means of personal and national defense,
Loss of half your income,
Confiscation of your 401k,
US financial laws being negotiated this week to prepare the USA fiscal system to be submitted to the UN?
Proposals to force my daughter to perform service in “poor areas” of our country and around the world?
Religion systematically crushed.
What combination of these, or which gross violation of one, will be the spark?
There truly is a line.
Publish the Declaration of Independence today, listing instead the current transgressions against freedom rather than those of King George, and you will probably be on some watch list.
Think about that.
TV networks don't care because this only applies to radio.
The government didn’t like what Howard Stern was saying but he says it every morning on Sirius. If people are willing to pay why can’t they hear whatever they want?
When we said “free speech”, we didn’t mean for people who disagree. :D
Government decided the airwaves were public by fiat, what stops them from doing the same from the frequencies satellites use? Stroke of a pen,,, executive order,,, satellite under the FCC.
Radio is becoming irrelevant, Satellite, internet, and cable are exploding. They will find a way in very soon. They must be able to control the discourse.
It won't be the government who sues.
it will be NYTIMESWAPOCHICAGOTRIBUNEABCNBCCBSMSNBCCNN
“Could this also be enforced on XM Radio and Sirius?”
I don’t believe so, because it’s not on the general airwaves. You have to subscribe. I would envision Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Bruce et al to end up there if the FD does go into force.
Any one of these could be the spark that causes the USA to ‘exploit” in violet in-fighting that will end the USA.
How will we find each other to email? It is very scary to me that all means of communication will be cut off to anyone who doesn’t do the liberal jig.
Plus internet conservitve websites can simply do off-shoring bigtime.
As it was previously written, no. But I’ve heard some talk of them using the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify giving themselves jurisdiction over everything (cable, satellite, internet).
But as another poster said, it’s a moot point. Once they get into the business of censoring political speech, we can kiss the First Amendment — and our asses — goodbye. We’ll be crushed. America will cease to be.
My greatest concern is that the Democrats, flush with power, still seething over George Bush's Presidency and misreading the results of a close election as a "mandate" will overreach on a grand scale.
But, unlike the Clinton Administration, these people are true radicals who desire nothing less than the complete transformation of American government and society into the utopian socialist model of their dreams - and our nightmares.
Perhaps they believe that conservatives will stand idly by and let it happen. Some in fact, may. I will not.
Some old radicals i read about in 6th grade wrote this,,
I think they were from Philadelphia??
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
It would be foolish to silence conservatism if the Dems want to stay in power.
Pursuing this avenue will also cause division within. It is the perfect opportunity for a nobody Democrat Congressman, with strong leadership ability, to rise to fame championing “Free Speech”.
Sirius is on the verge of bankruptcy.
In practice that might be true, but in actuallity it applies to both radio and broadcast TV. Why it doesn't appear to apply to TV anymore is that the broadcast networks no longer have what was known as editorial viewpoints, as they once did. Instead they just cover their editorial position under the cloak of "news."
OK. I misunderstood the context. Thanks.
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.