Skip to comments.
FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
businessandmedia.org ^
| August 12, 2008
| Jeff Poor
Posted on 08/12/2008 2:23:35 PM PDT by Rufus2007
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Rush Limbaugh goes, then will the folks at the Huffington Post have to go too?
1
posted on
08/12/2008 2:23:37 PM PDT
by
Rufus2007
To: Rufus2007
“folks at the Huffington Post have to go too?”
Who do you think would be sitting on the thought police commission?
2
posted on
08/12/2008 2:27:28 PM PDT
by
dynachrome
(Henry Bowman is right)
To: Rufus2007
We finally have Power to The People (though not exactly what the 60’s chanters expected).
Are we going to give it back without a fight?
McCain unfortunately has said that he “does not know how to use the internet” or something like that. If that's true, he's unlikely to understand the issues or even to know what's going on.
Obama unfortunately does know what's going on, and given his thin-skinned attempts to regulate what can be said about him, he'll fer shur “do something” about the fairness doctrine and the web.
3
posted on
08/12/2008 2:29:25 PM PDT
by
DBrow
To: Rufus2007
the defiance of this would be huge and unenforceable
4
posted on
08/12/2008 2:29:46 PM PDT
by
sloop
(pfc in the quiet civil war)
To: Rufus2007
What about the MSM? They are so hopelessly biased - we have just a small sliver of radio and Internet (and just a wee bit of Fox News). This is unbelievable.
5
posted on
08/12/2008 2:30:15 PM PDT
by
Heartland Mom
(The Presidency is not an entry-level position.)
To: Rufus2007
The FCC is supposed to regulate AIR WAVES and signals that go through the air.
The internet does NOT.
This is a very frightening prospect - but not nearly as frightening as the idea that a new liberal Congress may give the internet to international bodies. If they do that, then the FCC won’t have to regulate the net - the UN will do it for them.
And yes, who do you think will be judging what can and cannot be said on the net?
6
posted on
08/12/2008 2:31:05 PM PDT
by
Tzimisce
(How Would Mohammed Vote? Obama for President!)
To: sloop
Like the second amendment case before the Supreme Court, the Fairness Doctrine and the extent of enforcement could be a flashpoint issue.
7
posted on
08/12/2008 2:31:48 PM PDT
by
Crazieman
(Vote Juan McAmnesty in 2008! Because freedom abroad is more important than freedom at home!)
To: DBrow
Algore really screwed up when he invented this thing .
8
posted on
08/12/2008 2:34:54 PM PDT
by
kbennkc
(For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
To: Rufus2007
Warning. Government wants to control speech, and they think, thought. Got news for them. People like us will not let them do it.
9
posted on
08/12/2008 2:35:03 PM PDT
by
BooksForTheRight.com
(Fight liberal lies with knowledge. Read conservative books and articles.)
To: Rufus2007
No, to Liberals who run the ‘fairness(sic) doctrine, Huffnstuff would be considered right and fairly balanced, thus, she could go on.
10
posted on
08/12/2008 2:36:17 PM PDT
by
mnehring
To: Tzimisce
The FCC is supposed to regulate AIR WAVES and signals that go through the air. That was a silly pretext for control even when it was adapted . My internet connection goes through the air as does my satellite TV .
11
posted on
08/12/2008 2:38:37 PM PDT
by
kbennkc
(For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
To: Rufus2007
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Period.
To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Good one . They should put that part first .
13
posted on
08/12/2008 2:42:04 PM PDT
by
kbennkc
(For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
To: Rufus2007
Helpful note to executive branch: Any government employee who embraces the "Fairness Doctrine"
at all should be
immediately terminated and barred from future employment in
any government capacity.
Such dangerous beliefs should be expressly repugnant to every American who has a basic understanding of our heritage and Constitution. For an employed agent of the government to regard that atrocity with anything other than utter loathing is evidence of either his lack of understanding or his lack of respect for liberty and the supremacy of the Constitution.
14
posted on
08/12/2008 2:42:12 PM PDT
by
TChris
(Vote John McCain: Democrat Lite -- 3% less liberal than a regular Democrat!)
To: sloop
The internet treats censorship like damage and routes around it. The bright folks that thought up arapanet (later, the internet) designed it to survive a nuclear confrontation between the USA and USSR.
Content will survive.
'EFF the fascists. And kiss my rabbit between the ears.
/johnny
15
posted on
08/12/2008 2:42:44 PM PDT
by
JRandomFreeper
(Bless us all, each, and every one.)
To: Rufus2007
During the days when the Fairness Doctrine was on the rule books, the Constitutional argument permitting the FCC to exercise some degree of content regulation was “scarcity of frequencies.” The theory went that anyone could start a newspaper but radio and TV frequencies were limited and hence the FCC could legitimately regulate content, at least to some degree. Limited content regulation was necessary, or so the argument went, to ensure that all voices were heard, not just the ones favored by a limited number of broadcast station owners. Hence broadcasters had and continue to have less First Amendment protection than print media, for example. (The equal time doctrine still applies to broadcast media, for example.)
There’s no legitimate way that one can argue that there’s a scarcity of Internet access or that without government intervention, all views would not be heard over the Internet. It’s far easier to set up a web site, for example, than to start a newspaper.
While one should never predict what the Congress or the Supreme Court will do, I don’t see how political content regulation of the Internet even comes close to passing Constitutional muster.
Of course, I also thought that regulating campaign contributions was an impermissible infringement upon political speech.
Jack
16
posted on
08/12/2008 2:47:39 PM PDT
by
JackOfVA
To: Crazieman
17
posted on
08/12/2008 2:52:25 PM PDT
by
HANG THE EXPENSE
(Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
To: Rufus2007
This is more of McDowell’s pro-cable-industry FUD.
18
posted on
08/12/2008 2:53:52 PM PDT
by
steve-b
(Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
To: Jim Robinson
To: Lancey Howard
20
posted on
08/12/2008 2:57:54 PM PDT
by
ConservativeMan55
(Obama is the Democrats guy. They bought the ticket, now they must take the ride.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson