General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf we truly want to reclaim our democracy, the Fairness Doctrine must be reinstated and strengthened
We are living with the results of decades of unchallenged propaganda over the airwaves and in the print media, and it's ugly.
onenote
(42,683 posts)And even if it did, it would be struck down by the courts.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)so Faux, MSNBC or CNN won't be affected. And print is covered by the 1st Amendment.
It was only for the airways.
SterlingPound
(428 posts)they just won't
edhopper
(33,554 posts)the airways were deemed "owned by the public" and licensed to the networks. therefore they could be regulated this way. Cable is private and therefore a Fairness Doctrine for them would violate the 1st Amendment on Free Speech.
It's not "they" it's the Constitution.
SterlingPound
(428 posts)So an argument can be made for those being part of our infrastructure invaluable to the nation
the only question is "will they"
edhopper
(33,554 posts)it would be like saying Newspapers need roads, therefore they don't have Free speech protection.
SterlingPound
(428 posts)but as we now see Not a damn thing is settled in this country you just have to wait for a favorable bench!
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I doubt a liberal court would do it just because it favors Dems.
That is how Conservatives work. We believe in the rule of law.
SterlingPound
(428 posts)And I have yet to actually see a conservative live up to that Bullshit hype
edhopper
(33,554 posts)imposing a speech doctrine on Cable stations does violate the 1st amendment. The same as it would for any print media.
You can put it back for Radio and OTA TV, but that is because they rent public airways.
I understand your sentiment and frustration with RW "news" outlets. But that is the price of upholding the Constitution.
SterlingPound
(428 posts)I will have to disagree with you
edhopper
(33,554 posts)UpInArms
(51,280 posts)On February 16, 2009, Fowler told conservative radio talk-show host Mark Levin that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff's position as saying to Reagan, "the only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networksevery day they would savage Ronald Reaganis the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it!" [9] Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law.
In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC).
In 1986, Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it.[10] In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, two other judges on the same court declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.[11]
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[12] The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
Reaction
In June 1987, Congress had attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine [13], but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.[14]
dlk
(11,540 posts)For example, how much harm will Facebook's policy of not fact-checking political ads cause? It's difficult to believe there is absolutely nothing that can be done. I believe there is a way to write legislation that protects the public and protects free speech. After all, it's not protected speech to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Free speech is not unlimited in all circumstances.