[444Flyer]

The MSM rags are dying and going bankrupt. Don't expect any coverage on this outside of forums like FR. Through envy, incompetence and fascism the MSM will be cheering this decision.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Al Gore bizarrely called it a "protection" that was removed during the Reagan years.

It was protection. It protected the 'Rats from any sort of public scrutiny.

[manc]

will it impose the TV where it is all liberal and impose all the newspapers too?
who would oversea that the media is being fair?

As right now the left enjoys TV, newspapers and Hollywood films (can’t turn over channels now without seeing homo’s in movies, can’t watch a historian movie without PC and diversity in it) being biased for them while we only have talk radio which the liberals could not compete with in the market place as no one wants to hear a bunch of moaning girlie men like colmes or angry bitter elitist bigoted women moaning.

i.e. the left want so silence free speech when it opposes them.
the likes of RUSH would destroy any liberal in this country as liberals do not want to hear or be questioned

[woollyone]

Bring back the pamphleteers!

That orignal pesky little document the founders used to spread the truth...the one that got the “freedom of the press” included in the 1st amendment.

Everyone has a printer!
Every block has a telephone pole!
Every person has two hands!
Every kinkos has a photocopier!

[RetiredArmy]

My question is, after Oberman has slobbered for an hour on MSNBC, if I can have the same hour to tell how dangerous and lousy Obama is/

[divine_moment_of_facts]

If need be.. can’t SCOTUS rule is unconstitutional?

[karlkat]

One cannot assume that politicians are always forthright, obfuscation of the facts are more the norm than the exception. The Fairness Doctrine is spelled out in Title 47 of the code (47 USC),

<<< The FCC’s statutory mandate to see that broadcasters operate in the public interest and Congress’ reaffirmation, in the 1959 amendment to 315 of the Communications Act, of the FCC’s view that the fairness doctrine inhered in the public interest standard, support the conclusion that the doctrine and its component personal attack and political editorializing regulations are a legitimate exercise of congressionally delegated authority. Pp. 379-386.

*Here’s section 315 of Title 47 USC

<<<Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or………….

So the fairness doctrine address’s equal time for political candidates, that’s it. Period.
It’s voluntary, and the question now is what broadcast stations?

Some history first
The FCC is the birth child of the Federal Radio Commission , formed in 1927,it was a treaty, and dealt with radio broadcasts from sea going vessals.
Here’s a link form wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Act_of_1927
The above mentioned legislation dealt with mobile radio braodcasts, sometimes the message was relayed by *ground base stations.We all know that Congress has authority to enter in to treaties, and even treaties are constrained by the Constitution. The First Amendment protects free speeech, so we should expect the fairness doctrine to conform.
So lets take a look at 47 USC SECTION 315, and the regulations(very important) to find out what radio stations are covered, so here it is.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/usc_cfr.cgi?title=47&section=315

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/usc_cfr.cgi?title=47&section=315
<<<CFR parts for which 47 USC 315 provides authority
This is a list of parts within the Code of Federal Regulations for which this US Code section provides rulemaking authority. It is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities provided by NARA at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/parallel/parallel_table.html. It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the NARA site.
· 47 CFR 22
· 47 CFR 80
· 47 CFR 97
So the first listed authority is 47 CFR 22, listed below are the pertinent parts, this regulation deals with cellular radio, as in hand held units.
<<<Title 47: Telecommunication
Browse Previous | Browse Next
PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
§ 22.1 Basis and purpose
(a) Basis. These rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et. seq.
*NOTE et. seg. Means everything after 47 USC 151 which would include 47 USC 315
(a) Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to establish the requirements and conditions under which radio stations may be licensed and used in the Public Mobile Services
(b) § 22.3 Authorization required
Stations in the Public Mobile Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules in this part and with a valid authorization granted by the FCC under the provisions of this part.
<<<§ 22.99 Definitions
Mobile station. One or more transmitters that are capable of operation while in motion
Public Mobile Services. Radio services in which licensees are authorized to offer and provide mobile and related fixed radio telecommunication services for hire to the public.
So where is the authority to regulate mobile radio services, does it reside with the FCC or is it part of a treaty or convention, lets consult the definitions provided by the FCC.
<<< Federal Communications Commission
§ 2.1 Terms and definitions.
(a) Where a term or definition appears
in this part of the Commission’s
Rules, it shall be the definitive term or
definition and shall prevail throughout
the Commission’s Rules.
(b) The source of each definition is
indicated as follows:
CONV—International Telecommunication
Convention, Malaga-Torremolinos, 1973.
RR—Radio Regulations, Geneva, 1982.
FCC—Federal Communications Commission.
*Mobile Service. A radiocommunication
service between mobile and land stations,
or between mobile stations.
(CONV)
So the regulations for Mobile Service is based on International Telecommunication
Convention, Malaga-Torremolinos, 1973, a treaty, terms of a treaty are not enforceable in the several states of the union, see Supreme Court decision Downes v. Bidwell. This by definition would eliminate all private radio stations in the several states.

So 47 CFR section 22 has nothing to do with private radio broadcasting stations. that are not cellular by nature.
Now let’s consult 47 USC section 80 for the next authority
TITLE 47—Telecommunication
PART 80—STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES
§ 80.1 Basis and purpose.
This section contains the statutory basis for this part of the rules and provides the purpose for which this part is issued.
§ 80.5 Definitions
Maritime mobile service. A mobile service between coast stations and ship stations, or between ship stations, or between associated on-board communication stations. Survival craft stations and EPIRB stations also participate in this service.
These regulation have nothing to do with radio stations that aren’t in maritime service (exclusively shore to ship) So lets look at the last regulation 47 CFR 97
PART 97—AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE
§ 97.113 Prohibited transmissions
<<<<<(b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules; nor shall an amateur station engage in any activity related to program production or news gathering for broadcasting purposes, except that communications directly related to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to the public where no other means of communication is reasonably available before or at the time of the event
So the last regulations deal with Amateur Radio Stations, which by definition are not permitted to broadcast.
Has anyone ever seen any one of these radio stations covered by the regulations, which implement 47 USC SECTION 315 with Facilities for candidates for public office. This gets ridicules after a while doesn’t it.?
This is the way Congress operates, write the laws and regulations, to implement the law, with very limited applications. This is very needful, to avoid being struck down by the Supreme Court. Congress is very adept at using public ignorance and so-called experts to ramrod their agenda.

[kevinm13]

Free speech is a battle worth fighting for. Don’t let anything close to the old “Fairness” Doctrine be passed.

[sickoflibs]

I understand this would be a great issue for us but as it keeps on being reported here, a frontal assault, seems unlikely. It's just too ugly of an issue for them to loose publicly although Talk radio is a big problem to them. I hear there is some crap about them shifting ownership of fcc licenses. Direct control of radio station network message would not be held constitutional, a huge embarrassment for them. Hugo Chavis.

[papasmurf]

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,"

Asshat. Not even comparable. Besides, you are pornographic to me.

[F. dAnconia]

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."

This is the scariest statement I've ever read. I can't understand why anyone would utter it without a chill going up their spine.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

[Labyrinthos]

The “fairness doctrine is just another way of “spreading the wealth” by effectively requiring popular conservative talk radio hosts and their advertisers to subsidize access to unpopular liberal talk radio hosts, who have very few advertisers.

With the said, I do not believe that the current Supreme Court will uphold the fairness doctrine as it has in the past if the doctrine as reinstated is an attempt to regulate speech (as opposed to regulating access to the public airways) or does not apply or is not enforced equally against broadcast television. In fact, I'm not convinced that the SCOTUS will uphold the fairness doctrine at all because the rationale for upholding the doctrine prior to 1987 no longer exists in that, unlike then, there are currently unlimited opportunities for the public to obtain information and divergent point of view, including broadcast TV and radio, cable TV and radio, satellite TV and radio, and most importantly, the Internet. Remember, the purpose of the fairness doctrine as previously upheld by the SCOTUS was not to guarantee equal access to the airways for the benefit of those people trying to deliver a message, but to ensure that the public, who owns the airways, is able to receive divergent points of view.

[HighlyOpinionated]

I don’t think it’s possible to insist on Fairness Doctrine laws on the Internet. If so, DU and daily Kos would have to accept FReepers giving the ‘other’ or ‘correct/right’ side of every post there. Huffington would have to accept and print articles by the right. I would think it would be the Libtards who would be screaming the most.

Hey, we can all go to DU and cause great storms to brew there as easily as they come here to do the same.

Right/Correct or Left/Wrong?

[domeika]

Maybe the answer here is a pre-emptive strike.
We should start a campaign to contact each and every news organization, talk station, newspaper, network and local TV...ie. every midia outlet the left controls...and demand free rebuttal time. Be it a rebuttal to a news story, or a recipe you don't agree with, it doesn't matter. Of course they will decline, because the fairness doctrine is not in effect. However, they would be forced to see that there are two edges to that blade and they can expect a cash gash themselves, and would then throw their weight against it.

[Munz]

Bye FR I’ll miss you dearly. :-(

[<1/1,000,000th%]

They call it “localism” now.