HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If we truly want to recla...

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 10:16 AM

If 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.

14 replies, 1305 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply If we truly want to reclaim our democracy, the Fairness Doctrine must be reinstated and strengthened (Original post)
dlk Oct 2019 OP
onenote Oct 2019 #1
edhopper Oct 2019 #2
SterlingPound Oct 2019 #4
edhopper Oct 2019 #5
SterlingPound Oct 2019 #6
edhopper Oct 2019 #7
SterlingPound Oct 2019 #8
edhopper Oct 2019 #9
SterlingPound Oct 2019 #10
edhopper Oct 2019 #12
SterlingPound Oct 2019 #13
edhopper Oct 2019 #14
UpInArms Oct 2019 #3
dlk Oct 2019 #11

Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 10:26 AM

1. Not going to happen.

And even if it did, it would be struck down by the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 10:31 AM

2. It can't be implemented for cable or streaming

so Faux, MSNBC or CNN won't be affected. And print is covered by the 1st Amendment.

It was only for the airways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:16 AM

4. but they can add cable to a bill

they just won't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SterlingPound (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:19 AM

5. The Fainess Doctrine was allowed because

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:23 AM

6. Our taxes were used to lay most of the cable and fiber optic cable in America

So an argument can be made for those being part of our infrastructure invaluable to the nation

the only question is "will they"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SterlingPound (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:26 AM

7. That argument will fail in the SCOTUS

it would be like saying Newspapers need roads, therefore they don't have Free speech protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #7)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:28 AM

8. In this one, Yes!

but as we now see Not a damn thing is settled in this country you just have to wait for a favorable bench!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SterlingPound (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:34 AM

9. I have a problem with circumventing the 1st Amendment

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:36 AM

10. Good thing it doesnt circumvent the First Amendment!

And I have yet to actually see a conservative live up to that Bullshit hype

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SterlingPound (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:44 AM

12. Yes

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:45 AM

13. Well much like the "originalists' disagree with the rest of the nation

I will have to disagree with you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SterlingPound (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:46 AM

14. I understand

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 10:31 AM

3. It all goes back to Raygun

http://taggedwiki.zubiaga.org/new_content/4a66e923f56b505d450632449734c68a

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

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 networks—every day they would savage Ronald Reagan—is 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]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Mon Oct 28, 2019, 11:43 AM

11. There must be a way to regulate the unending propaganda that has harmed our country

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread