FCC not only agency seeking media regulation (Czar drew up 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine')

WorldNetDaily ^ | October 22, 2009 | Aaron Klein

[RobinMasters]

The Federal Communications Commission's unanimous support yesterday for a rule that would open the door to government regulation of the Internet has raised the concern of free speech advocates, but there are other members of the Obama administration who support similar measures.

The president's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "fairness doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and little scrutiny.

In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced."

[RobinMasters]

Ping.

[EagleUSA]

Red Storm Rising.

[A. Morgan]

How far are these clowns going to push us?

[Ben Mugged]

"nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view"

Sort of like Congress started out in 1776. Look what it became. Should read more like the truth "Socialist Experts" to ensure "the Socialist Message".

[La Lydia]

What is it they don’t understand about “Congress shall make no law...”? This Sunstein character ought to be a laughing stock, not a presidential appointee. He is a whackjob of the first magnitude. This is the one who wants to give animals lawyers. He also thinks he is smarter than our Founding Fathers (as does Obama). Any rational society would have marginalized him long ago for his irrational beliefs and writings.

[dennisw]

Cass Sunstein—— This bald headed stooge is a nasty piece of work and check out his wife. A loony leftist from Ireland Samantha Power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

[Cyclone59]

So, when will NPR start carrying Rush and Beck - hey balance is balance isn’t it?

[dennisw]

wikipedia-—>>>

Animal rights

A tiny fraction of Sunstein’s work has addressed the question of animal rights. “Every reasonable person believes in animal rights,” he says, continuing that “we might conclude that certain practices cannot be defended and should not be allowed to continue, if, in practice, mere regulation will inevitably be insufficient—and if, in practice, mere regulation will ensure that the level of animal suffering will remain very high.” [16]

Sunstein’s views on animal rights generated controversy when Sen.Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) blocked his appointment to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Obama. Chambliss objected to the introduction of Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a volume edited by Sunstein and his then-partner Martha Nussbaum. On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot sue for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.

[guardian_of_liberty]

panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves

Am I the only one who has reached the point where I can hardly contain myself anymore? Every time I hear someone in the obama administration say something like this I feel ready to explode.

[PubliusMM]

The destruction of America will come at the hands of these liberal gasbags and will be via their interpretation of the Constitution as a ‘living document’, not the foundational legal document of the nation drafted by the founders.

It’s time to take back the country.

[La Lydia]

From American Thinker: He "explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them."

Sunstein's book is a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading "rumors."...bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be "proven".

Skepticism about candidates often begin on the web or talk radio-these steps (so vital to a democracy) would be chilled should Sunstein's ideas be put into practice. One should not dismiss that prospect: this is the most ideologically driven administration in many years.

[Tigerized]

Rush and Beck on NPR? The whole irony here is that when Public Broadcasting was first created in 1948 as a method for everyone (no matter how much money they had) to have a voice, there was a strict prohibition against any form of political speech! Public Broadcasting was to be completely politically neutral.

Somewhere along the way, all of these “educational” stations swung way left, and have been there every since. With the support of your tax dollars, of course!

When I worked in Berkeley, I used to listen to KPFA just to get myself going in the morning...

Remember the Breathairian? Now THERE’S a story...

[EagleUSA]

How far are these clowns going to push us?
::::::
As far as they can get away with.....

[dennisw]

Sunstien is a loopy old kook...same as 0bama

Rush was reading an excerpt from 0bama’s college thesis today. Where 0bama writes “our so called Founding Fathers” and starts bit**ing that the Constitution says nothing about wealth redistribution but should have

[Freddd]

There is no new deal for the 1st Amendment.

We have it, it’s our right. We will not give it up . Not a little at a time. or a lot at a time.

[Freddd]

Congress won’t.

FCC will.

[Will88]

He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."

And just how is free speech promoted by giving a forum to someone no one wants to listen to?

Just one more step toward Big Brother. Actually, in most cases, no one is paying anything for someone to be heard. Companies pay advertising fees for their commercials to be seen and heard, not for a speaker to be heard. And speakers who can actually attract an audience also attract advertisers.

This Sunstein clown wants profitable broadcasters to be required to pay for broadcasters who can't draw an audience. The next step is, government will require people to listen to those who can't draw an audience.

Getting closer to 1984 with the TV that requires no turning on or off, and no selection of channels. Big Brother will do it all for us.

[Catsrus]

The key here is the term “Congress.” Cass isn’t a member of Congress, therefore, they get around the Constitution. However, I suspect if this becomes law, there will be lawsuits.