Clarence Thomas : Fairness Doctrine 'unconstitutional'

WND ^ | April 30, 2009 | Joe Kovacs

[RobinMasters]

For the first time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is offering some legal insight about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it's revived and brought before the bench.

In written discussion on yesterday's ruling cracking down on indecent language on television, Justice Clarence Thomas called the policy "problematic" and a "deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters."

The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission.

[agrace]

Ping for your list.

[Salvation]

**the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it’s revived and brought before the bench. **

YES!

[SaraJohnson]

At least part of the government still cares about at least part of the constitution still. That is good news. The pinko “hate crime law” which interferes in free speech will probably get the axe too.

[Wisconsinlady]

Oh, boy. This is the FIRST bit of good news I have heard today.

[warsaw44]

ping for morning

[Migraine]

Clarence Thomas is my hero. I can’t think of anyone in the world I admire more. God bless him!

[lrb111]

later

[theymakemesick]

Thank God someone still understands the US Constitution.

[Lancey Howard]

Thank God someone still understands the US Constitution.

Well, sure he does. It's why the lefties hate him.

[Kent C]

Money quote:

“The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so,” Thomas noted.

“It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media.”

1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”

Which part of ‘no law’ don’t the liberals understand?

If the writers of the amendment truly intended for Congress to make _no law_, is there a better wording that would make it clearer than how they wrote it??

[Rastus]

They won’t implement the Fairness Doctrine. They’ll go for local rules, which will be harder to defeat.

[Caipirabob]

Thank you, Justice Thomas. We'll need you more than ever the next few years...

[kellynla]

Now, Clarence, while you're feeling so law-abiding, would you ask the Chief Justice for those lawsuits that have been filed regarding Hussein's eligibility to be POTUS

[Delacon]

ping

[LibertyRocks]

WOW -- This is EXCELLENT news, really!

Now if we could only get Thomas to look at one of Obama's eligibility cases somehow... (After they get through those lower courts, and not emergency apps that have been rejected)

At least there is hope that our government (or at least the judicial branch) is still capable of understanding some of the fundamental rights Obama and his DNC minions are attempting to demolish.

I continue to pray daily that the folks in power in our government have their eyes opened to what is going on all around them. I have faith that SOME of them will 'come around'. As for the others who are fully 'in cahoots' with Obama -- I'll continue to pray for the ability to forgive them for what they are doing, as I find it VERY hard to do so...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is of course excellent as far as it goes, but

1. It is only one justice, and we need Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy and should work toward getting some or even all of the "liberals" as well. None of the justices I named above voted to uphold McCain-Feingold in McConnell v. FEC.

2. Strictly speaking, our rights to talk radio and our freedom of internet communication are not in the First Amendment - they would exist, according to the Federalists who proposed the Constitution without a bill of rights, in the limited powers of the government. And while it is true that radio and the internet aren't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, Congress is given explicit authority "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" - and radio and the internet are merely "useful arts" for accomplishing the objectives which the First Amendment declares that we the people have a right to pursue.

[Pistolshot]

Our last best hope for controlling the runaway Congress is the SCOTUS. Any of the Constitutionalists, that issue statements like this pre-empt any consideration of bills that would be challenged.

Thomas is so mouthy during the SCOTUS sessions it's a wonder any of the other justices get a chance to speak./s

[conservativegramma]

1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” Which part of ‘no law’ don’t the liberals understand?

Absolutely right on. Now if only Thomas would come out and blast the hate crimes legislation that just passed the house yesterday as being equally unconstitutional I would be a happy camper.

[Little Ray]

The “Fairness Doctine” card ain’t gonna be played. The new method to silence talk radio is “Localism.” Local soviets, er, boards will report on radio stations to FCC on their support of “local interests.”
Solution, of course, is for conservatives to DEMAND that they be on those boards.