Oppose 'un-American' speech limits!Sign petition opposing so-called 'Fairness Doctrine'

World Net Daily ^ | February 03, 2009

[Delacon]

WND is announcing the launch of an online petition to oppose the "un-American" speech limits that Rush Limbaugh and other commentators could face should some interests in Congress succeed in re-adopting the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

The petition calls on all three branches of government to protect the speech freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

It urges Congress to "immediately drop all legislative efforts to re-impose the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' and that the president of the United States veto any so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' legislation approved by Congress and that the U.S. Supreme Court overturn as unconstitutional any so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' legislation approved by Congress and signed by the president."

To participate, sign the petition here.

"The notion of a so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' for the media, mandated by government and policed by a system devised by government, should be anathema to every American who understands liberty and the First Amendment," said Joseph Farah, founder, editor and chief executive officer of the leading independent online news source. "This is not just a threat to broadcasters. It's a threat to the Constitution and every American. This should not even be a matter of controversy – but, unfortunately, it is. We've lived through shameful period in which government regulated broadcast content. When it ended in 1987, we witnessed an explosion of new voices and lively debate. It's time for the American people to show we don't want to go backward."

But Farah says he was inspired to cross the divide on this issue because the clear and simple meaning of the Constitution is at stake.

The effort is addressed to Congress, the president and the high court:

The petition states:

[Delacon]

 

PETITION TO BLOCK CONGRESSIONAL
ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS

To: U.S. Congress, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States

Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances";

Whereas, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal of censoring talk radio by other means, and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs as the arbiters of "fairness" rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas;

Whereas, the U.S. experimented with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for 38 years - from 1949 through 1987 - during which time it was repeatedly used by presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism;

Whereas, the abandonment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech - starting with Rush Limbaugh - that revitalized the AM radio band and provided Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints;

Whereas, talk radio is one of the most crucial components of the free press in America, and is single-handedly responsible for informing tens of millions of Americans about what their government leaders are doing;

Whereas, it is a wholly un-American idea that government should be the watchdog of the press and a policeman of speech, as opposed to the uniquely American ideal of a free people and a free press being the vigilant watchdogs of government;

Whereas, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - either under that name, or using a new name and even more devious methods - represents a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and its re-imposition would constitute nothing more nor less than the crippling of America's robust, unfettered, free press:

 

                                SIGN THE PETITION at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=87882

 

Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.

[Delacon]

ping

[lonewacko_dot_com]

Every time someone says BHO wants to bring back the FD, they help BHO’s cause. He’s already on record as opposing the FD. What that means is it’s easy to dismiss those who claim he wants to bring it back.

The petition acknowledges that (”else accomplish the same goal”), but it’s easy to miss. The fact that they want to “either bring back something that would have the same effect as the FD, with some wanting to bring back the FD itself” should be the language that everyone should use.

It’d be nice if people would stop making mistakes like this and would stop playing into BHO’s hands.

[Bean Counter]

[Delacon]

Nonsense. For one thing, recent events show that BHO ain’t the political player you think he is. Secondly never underestimate liberals ability to overreach in politics. Liberals WANT the fairness doctrine. They NEED it. They are just trying to figure out a way to package and sell it and sneak it past the American people. Thirdly its not just about Obama, its about a very liberal and contentious congress that wants the FD or some permutation. If you think BHO will veto any bill that crushes talk radio, can I sell you a bridge?

[Delacon]

I love it. The worst of republican censorship from our past compared to the possible democrat censorship of our future. Regardless of what you think about what McCarthy was trying to do, you have to admit that he was heavy handed and stepped all over freedom of speech and rights to privacy. I sure as hell don’t look forward to a democrat version of McCarthyism. Neither should dems because it haunt them.

[txnativegop]

this may be because of my age, but as I recall, the Democrats controlled the Senate until ‘83-’85 and ‘95 - ‘07.

How could a Republican Senator in the Minority have done this without Democratic party help.

I am 40 years old.

This is something I have never understood.

[Dubh_Ghlase]

11,660 signatures so far...

[Delacon]

“this may be because of my age, but as I recall, the Democrats controlled the Senate until ‘83-’85 and ‘95 - ‘07.”

Same age. Back then the Supremes ruled that the FCC weernt required but had the power to obey the “fairness doctrine”. So how did the FCC take this? They threw it out.

[Delacon]

John Donne bump

[neverdem]

BTTT

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

My own perspective is that we need a court case brought to SCOTUS ASAP which would allow SCOTUS to make a ruling which would establish a hostile precedent towards the "fairness" doctrine. There's 5 presumptive votes for it, since O'Connor is replaced by Alito and Kennedy is pro 1A.

Such a case should IMHO cause SCOTUS to take note of the anticompetitive history of the Associated Press (according to Steve Boris, the AP was found by SCOTUS to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act) and the fact that journalism as we know it is a creature of the AP. SCOTUS should recognize that "the freedom . . . of the press" is the right of the people to spend money to apply technology for the purpose of promoting their opinions.

Membership in the AP, an organization which was not formed until two generations after the First Amendment was ratified, can in no sense be a requirement for freedom of the press to apply to a person. And yet that is the intent of McCain-Feingold, and it is the intent of the Fairness Doctrine - both of which hinge on the baseless assumption that AP journalism is objective.

It is an open secret that journalism selects its stories and emphases largely on criteria (such as "If it bleeds, it leads," "Man Bites Dog not Dog Bites Man," and "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper") which patently are motivated by the commercial interest of the journalist in attracting attention. Take cognizance of that, and you have to dismiss the conceit of "journalistic objectivity" out of hand. There is simply no case for it.

We saw in the case of Iraq that those rules justified headlining the violence when we were having trouble in Iraq, but dropping the subject when we got things more-or-less in hand there. That had political implications, but those political implications were anything but objective. They were self-interested on the part of journalism.

More here.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[PGalt]

BTTT

[Chickensoup]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172649/posts

it is important not to let leftists frame the argument. ask the mod to put “censorship doctrine” in parentheses next to the title.

[T Lady]

I agree, and signed the petition.

...It is definitely crystal clear the Democratic Party has begun their scorched earth policy of over reaching in this massive power grab of a 'stimulus' bill...and the steady drumbeat of silencing opposition.

This makes me think of the old adage "Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it", in terms of how some of the more gullible and ignorant American people have saddled the rest of us with a tyrannical President who bristles at the thought of anyone asking him a pointed and serious question, and a congress full of Power Hungry Socialists. I also think of the fact that once these jerks have been thrown out of office...the GOP could possibly turn the tables on them and enforce 'fairness' on the major networks.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I also think of the fact that once these jerks have been thrown out of office...the GOP could possibly turn the tables on them and enforce 'fairness' on the major networks

Personally I consider that to be impossible. It is only possible to defeat demagoges by standing on principle, for the simple reason that trying to beat demagogues at their own game is a fool's errand.

[wtc911]

Gee, you have to give WND your e-mail address to sign.....what a surprise.

[T Lady]

Point well taken...although it does seem to take eons for justice to win the day.

...We're in for four very long years.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

...We're in for four very long years.

If the Democrats choose our nominee again, it will be 8 for sure.