The "Fairness Doctrine" and Freedom of Speech

[Erich von Manstein]

I'll admit that I held a glimmer of hope after Obama was elected that the shredding of various civil liberties under the Bush administration was at an end. That honeymoon ended very quickly; I can already tell that the next four years are going to be hell on my blood pressure.

I introduce you to the "Fairness Doctrine." This doctrine, which was prevalent in the US from 1949 to 1980 (at which time it was discarded by Reagan as unconstitutional), requires broadcasters to present controversial issues in a manner that is "honest, equitable, and balanced." Now, after 20 years, it appears to be making a comeback. Leading Democrats in Congress, sensing victory at the polls, have been showing their support for a reintroduction of the doctrine over the last several weeks. This support includes but is not limited to several senior Democrats such as the Speaker of the House, the Majority Whip, and at least one primary victor (John Kerry). Should they have their way (and this seems likely, given the election results), political speech over the airways would be regulated. This is key: broadcasters have been regulated for decades and very few people oppose this, as there are numerous reasons for ensuring that TV and radio broadcasts don't interfere with emergency signals, or that obscene material is only shown at night. The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't just regulate broadcasters, it would regulate political speech. While the First Amendment ("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") would seem to prevent this, the Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine in the past as being necessary to ensure that one broadcaster doesn't monopolize the airwaves.

This is where the recent support for the Fairness Doctrine becomes most troublesome: the Democrat support for the doctrine is not grounded in any fears of a monopoly. The oft-mentioned target of the doctrine, conservative talk radio, only holds a monopoly in popularity. Leftists have made numerous attempts to popularize leftist talk radio and they all have failed due to a lack of listenership. As such, the Democrats are not attacking a monopoly in broadcasting in the traditional sense (one giant entity forcing out all competitors through unfair trade practices) but are attacking one particular type of political speech.

Look, I think Rush Limbaugh (the broadcaster, not the TWC member) and his ilk are absurd sensationalists who shouldn't be given the time of day. The same holds true for most of conservative talk radio, in my opinion. I find it very disturbing that not only are the Democrats attempting to further regulate the media, but they are doing so in an attempt to squash one particular brand of political speech that they frequently disagree with.

Has the tide turned on the First Amendment in this country? The last several decades have seen great strides in the expansion of the application of that particular right. The reenactment of this doctrine would be a giant step backwards. So much for "progressive" change; Pelosi et. al seem intent on treating certain civil liberties in a reactionary manner when they cause them (and their constituents, according to Pelosi) trouble.

[Dayman]

President-elect Barack Obama's campaign says that he "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.".

[Erich von Manstein]

Even Obama's most ardent supporters admit that he has never been willing to stand up to the Democratic leadership in Congress. Do you really think that he would possibly veto a bill that was so popular with those very people?

[Dayman]

Even Obama's most ardent supporters admit that he has never been able to stand up to the Democratic leadership in Congress.

He wasn't president before.

[Mithie]

Did you JUST discover this?

The republicans have been using the Fairness Doctrine for YEARS and YEARS and YEARS as a bogeyman to scare voters - ever since Bill Clinton went head to head against Bob Dole.

Never came CLOSE to getting passed.

[Erich von Manstein]

Did you JUST discover this?

The republicans have been using the Fairness Doctrine for YEARS and YEARS and YEARS as a bogeyman to scare voters - ever since Bill Clinton went head to head against Bob Dole.

Never came CLOSE to getting passed.

No, I've been familiar with this particular doctrine since the late '80s. The Democrats have a 60% majority in the House and may very well have an identical (and fillibuster-proof) majority in the Senate. In the last several weeks they have begun dropping strong hints that they would like to reenact it.

Besides, if I had intended to use this as a scare tactic I would have posted it two days ago. Rather, I'm interested to see if attempts by the government to regulate political speech disturb anyone else.

Also, the Democrats did prevent an attempt to block the reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine just last year. Doesn't seem so unlikely now, does it? Additionally, you're quite wrong about it never passing (let alone coming close); it passed in the mid-'80s and only failed to become law because the president (Reagan) vetoed it.

He wasn't president before.

So you would agree that the little history we have on him indicates that he would not stand up to them on this matter?

People, you're completely missing the issue by making this about Obama. Here's a basic Government 101 lesson for everyone: the president does NOT control Congress.

[bushbush]

i doubt this is high on his agenda right now, i can name a bunch of issues he urgently wanna take actions upon...and this isn't even close to be one of them.

[Mithie]

In the last several weeks they have begun dropping strong hits that they would like to reenact it.

Dropping strong hits of what? Acid? Because that's the only way that that piece of outdated crap will ever get passed.

It's old - just by the very fact that it refers solely to radios. Radios? What the hell are radios? It's a piece of relic - a bogeyman from the depths of history. I highly doubt our congress is stupid enough to even consider passing it.

Hell - if anything - they might pass a more modern version of it, and call it uh... THE PATRIOT ACT, or some catchy name like that.

[Erich von Manstein]

Dropping strong hits of what? Acid? Because that's the only way that that piece of outdated crap will ever get passed.

It's old - just by the very fact that it refers solely to radios. Radios? What the hell are radios?

How clever, you attacked the typo instead of the argument.

Regarding your claim that it will never be passed, I point to it's recent support and again to the fact that the Democrats recently blocked an attempt to prevent the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Now tell me, what is the point of doing that if you're not intending to bring it back at some point?

Would he not have veto power over such an act?

Given Obama's history, there simply is no evidence that he would stand up to the Speaker of the House, the Majority Whip, John Kerry, etc. by vetoing their legislation. Rather, the little evidence that there is supports the belief that he would remain neutral on the matter.

[Dayman]

So you would agree that the little history we have on him indicates that he would not stand up to them on this matter?

People, you're completely missing the issue by making this about Obama. Here's a basic Government 101 lesson for everyone: the president does NOT control Congress.

Would he not have veto power over such an act?

Something like this wouldn't pass.

[JP226]

i doubt this is high on his agenda right now, i can name a bunch of issues he urgently wanna take actions upon...and this isn't even close to be one of them.

Congressional dems are the ones that will bring it up, not Obama. The issue is whether or not he will veto it and it's hard to say the answer won't be no with a congress as powerful as what the dems have now.

[Mithie]

How clever, you attack the typo instead of the argument.

I'm sorry. I'll try to restrain my wit in the future.

Regarding your claim that it will never be passed, I point to it's recent support and again to the fact that the Democrats recently blocked an attempt to prevent the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Now tell me, what is the point of doing that if you're not intending to bring it back at some point?

It's a power move - a strategic manuever to keep a card in play. The Republicans refused to permanently table a topic that would allow corporations to fund their own private army back in '84, and that's still floating around.

It's a strategic card. As long as the actual bill is there, it can be changed, ressurected, and threatened to be brought forth as a smoking gun against similar ordinances proposed by the other party.

Congress does this kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean they all get passed.

Keeping a bill in play is NOT the same thing as passing it - or even opening it up for discussion.

[Erich von Manstein]

It's a power move - a strategic manuever to keep a card in play. The Republicans refused to permanently table a topic that would allow corporations to fund their own private army back in '84, and that's still floating around.

It's a strategic card. As long as the actual bill is there, it can be changed, ressurected, and threatened to be brought forth as a smoking gun against similar ordinances proposed by the other party.

Congress does this kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean they all get passed.

Keeping a bill in play is NOT the same thing as passing it - or even opening it up for discussion.

Be that as it may, the Democrats do have a history of passing this legislation, as I pointed out. Furthermore, reinstating the Doctrine would bring the Democrats on all levels a great deal of political and personal gain. Conservative talk shows outnumber leftist talk radio by a ratio of 9 to 1. Many leading Democrats simply abhor Rush Limbaugh (rightfully so, in many situations) and would love nothing more than to see him required by law to air their political arguments in a positive light. Besides, Republicans would've gained nothing by allowing corporations of have private armies back in '84. The Democrats have much to gain and little to lose by bringing this doctrine back.

I hate to say it, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

[Mithie]

Be that as it may, the Democrats do have a history of passing this legislation, as I pointed out. Furthermore, reinstating the Doctrine would bring the Democrats on all levels a great deal of political and personal gain. Conservative talk shows outnumber leftist talk radio by a ratio of 9 to 1. Many leading Democrats simply abhor Rush Limbaugh (rightfully so, in many situations) and would love nothing more than to see him required by law to air their political arguments in a positive light. Besides, Republicans would've gained nothing by allowing corporations of have private armies back in '84. The Democrats have much to gain and little to lose by bringing this doctrine back.

I hate to say it, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Let's just say we have different expectations from the current administration, and leave it at that.

I simply think - and hope - that our congress has a little bit more respect for our Bill of Rights and our Constitution than to pass something like this.

But then - after the Patriot Act and its cousins - I'm not willing to put any money down on that.

[Dayman]

Given Obama's history, there simply is no evidence that he would stand up to the Speaker of the House, the Majority Whip, John Kerry, etc. by vetoing their legislation. Rather, the little evidence that there is supports the belief that he would remain neutral on the matter.

Time will tell.

[Big War Bird]

Congress does not have to pass any law to bring back the Fainess Doctrine. It is a regulaton of the FCC that it has choose not to enforce. All it takes to bring this back is majority vote of the 5 FCC board memebers. IIRC right now there are two republicans, two democrats and one vacancy.