Gan
07-12-2008, 08:18 PM
‘Fair Doctrine’ hypocrisy
By: Derek Hunter
July 11, 2008 08:23 AM EST
There’s a battle raging behind the scenes in Washington these days about our most fundamental right: the freedom of speech.
You’d think something on which the Constitution is unambiguous (the First Amendment does say, “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech”) would be settled beyond dispute, but history has proved otherwise. President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, effectively threatening critics of the government with criminal prosecution. The Sedition Act of 1918, signed by President Woodrow Wilson, criminalized “disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language” about the United States government in a time of war.
But today’s politicians are too savvy to attempt this sort of full-frontal assault on speech. Instead they’re employing a slightly different, more modern tactic — censorship in the name of diversity.
There is a regulation still on the books at the Federal Communications Commission ironically called the Fairness Doctrine. What it purported to do was allow all points of view to be heard over the public airwaves. It never really lived up to that expectation.
The practical effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to create a broadcast market that steered clear of politics. Stations focused on news, weather and traffic, since political commentary was not allowed unless equal time was given to the opposite point of view. It was “diversity” in the sense that it offered different ways to achieve boredom and lose listeners.
In 1987, the FCC decided the Fairness Doctrine was no longer needed. The growth in the number of radio stations since the 1940s, when it originated, had been so great that there were enough outlets available that people could seek out what they wanted to hear and make up their own minds about what to think.
This decision kept the Fairness Doctrine on the books but unenforced. It was effectively gone but could easily be restored by majority vote of the five-member FCC.
Out from under the threat of a bureaucrat with a stopwatch, talk radio flourished. Program directors were allowed to run stations in whatever way attracted the largest audience.
But political talk radio’s success didn’t sit well with everyone — particularly liberals. Left-leaning viewpoints dominated the other mediums of the time (television and print journalism) but have never caught hold on radio.
With the never-ending failures of liberal talk outlets, Democrats have come to loathe the format. And if you can’t beat it, destroy it.
Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) are among the many politicians who have called for a return of the Fairness Doctrine.
Presumed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has yet to weigh in on the issue, but Durbin and Kerry are big, early supporters of the candidate, so one can guess where Obama will come down.
But the case for it has switched from one of wanting all opinions to be heard to the new, more politically correct “diversity” argument.
The need for diversity of opinion and diversity of media ownership (since big companies clearly are motivated by politics and not profit) has become the new battle cry. Last year the left-wing Center for American Progress released a report on how large companies owning many radio stations tended to have conservative hosts rather than “progressive” ones. It thinks, therefore, that diversity in media ownership would lead to diversity of opinions. There was no discussion of the utter failure of left-wing radio to acquire and maintain an audience.
Seeing censorship rolling down the tracks, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill last year that forbade the FCC from spending any money this year on Fairness Doctrine enforcement. It was a symbolic vote, since the FCC wasn’t enforcing it anyway, but it put members of Congress on record supporting free speech or opposing it. The amendment passed 309-115.
Pence introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act to permanently remove the doctrine from the books. Something that overwhelmingly passed for a one-year ban should be easily repealed, right? Not quite.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) blocked the BFA from coming to a vote and has stated her personal support for the return of the Fairness Doctrine. So Pence started a discharge petition, a procedural maneuver, to force a vote. As of now, there are 195 signatories of the needed 218 on the discharge petition.
Currently, all 111 Democrats who voted for the one-year ban have refused to sign the discharge petition, along with two Republicans. These members have the distinction of being the charter members of the Hypocrisy Caucus (www.hypocrasycaucus.com) (http://www.hypocrasycaucus.com)). On the issue of freedom of speech, you can’t have it both ways.
Under the guise of diversity, modern-day liberals are engaging in the same type of liberty-threatening activities from our nation’s past. We can’t wait until our freedoms are curtailed before we speak up, because if they take away the best medium we have for expressing ourselves to others, how would anyone hear us?
Derek Hunter is federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0939796E-3048-5C12-00E09FB3F77C92DC
________________________________________________
Discuss (and weigh in on the poll).
By: Derek Hunter
July 11, 2008 08:23 AM EST
There’s a battle raging behind the scenes in Washington these days about our most fundamental right: the freedom of speech.
You’d think something on which the Constitution is unambiguous (the First Amendment does say, “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech”) would be settled beyond dispute, but history has proved otherwise. President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, effectively threatening critics of the government with criminal prosecution. The Sedition Act of 1918, signed by President Woodrow Wilson, criminalized “disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language” about the United States government in a time of war.
But today’s politicians are too savvy to attempt this sort of full-frontal assault on speech. Instead they’re employing a slightly different, more modern tactic — censorship in the name of diversity.
There is a regulation still on the books at the Federal Communications Commission ironically called the Fairness Doctrine. What it purported to do was allow all points of view to be heard over the public airwaves. It never really lived up to that expectation.
The practical effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to create a broadcast market that steered clear of politics. Stations focused on news, weather and traffic, since political commentary was not allowed unless equal time was given to the opposite point of view. It was “diversity” in the sense that it offered different ways to achieve boredom and lose listeners.
In 1987, the FCC decided the Fairness Doctrine was no longer needed. The growth in the number of radio stations since the 1940s, when it originated, had been so great that there were enough outlets available that people could seek out what they wanted to hear and make up their own minds about what to think.
This decision kept the Fairness Doctrine on the books but unenforced. It was effectively gone but could easily be restored by majority vote of the five-member FCC.
Out from under the threat of a bureaucrat with a stopwatch, talk radio flourished. Program directors were allowed to run stations in whatever way attracted the largest audience.
But political talk radio’s success didn’t sit well with everyone — particularly liberals. Left-leaning viewpoints dominated the other mediums of the time (television and print journalism) but have never caught hold on radio.
With the never-ending failures of liberal talk outlets, Democrats have come to loathe the format. And if you can’t beat it, destroy it.
Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) are among the many politicians who have called for a return of the Fairness Doctrine.
Presumed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has yet to weigh in on the issue, but Durbin and Kerry are big, early supporters of the candidate, so one can guess where Obama will come down.
But the case for it has switched from one of wanting all opinions to be heard to the new, more politically correct “diversity” argument.
The need for diversity of opinion and diversity of media ownership (since big companies clearly are motivated by politics and not profit) has become the new battle cry. Last year the left-wing Center for American Progress released a report on how large companies owning many radio stations tended to have conservative hosts rather than “progressive” ones. It thinks, therefore, that diversity in media ownership would lead to diversity of opinions. There was no discussion of the utter failure of left-wing radio to acquire and maintain an audience.
Seeing censorship rolling down the tracks, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill last year that forbade the FCC from spending any money this year on Fairness Doctrine enforcement. It was a symbolic vote, since the FCC wasn’t enforcing it anyway, but it put members of Congress on record supporting free speech or opposing it. The amendment passed 309-115.
Pence introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act to permanently remove the doctrine from the books. Something that overwhelmingly passed for a one-year ban should be easily repealed, right? Not quite.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) blocked the BFA from coming to a vote and has stated her personal support for the return of the Fairness Doctrine. So Pence started a discharge petition, a procedural maneuver, to force a vote. As of now, there are 195 signatories of the needed 218 on the discharge petition.
Currently, all 111 Democrats who voted for the one-year ban have refused to sign the discharge petition, along with two Republicans. These members have the distinction of being the charter members of the Hypocrisy Caucus (www.hypocrasycaucus.com) (http://www.hypocrasycaucus.com)). On the issue of freedom of speech, you can’t have it both ways.
Under the guise of diversity, modern-day liberals are engaging in the same type of liberty-threatening activities from our nation’s past. We can’t wait until our freedoms are curtailed before we speak up, because if they take away the best medium we have for expressing ourselves to others, how would anyone hear us?
Derek Hunter is federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=0939796E-3048-5C12-00E09FB3F77C92DC
________________________________________________
Discuss (and weigh in on the poll).