Posted on 08/12/2008 7:08:30 PM PDT by FightThePower!
There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.
The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.
“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”
“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”
McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.
“The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that,” McDowell said. “So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate.”
A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine – scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest – are myths.
How ‘bout this. The “Fairness” Doctrine is anti-First Amendment! It should be called the, Say Anything You Like, Just Don’t Say Anything You Don’t Like Doctrine. That’s what they called it in the old Soviet Union.
like right now, the truth regarding the BC of the obamination - it's will see the light of day, ONLY due to the bloggers.
the freedom on information and sharing of expertise on the Web is a real danger to the Marxists - the first thing Hitler and Stalin and other dictators did/do is to block dissemination of information from citizens to citizens.
I think this would be the surest way to cause a civil war.
I have long assumed that the Inet was at least as much a target of a resurrected Fairness Doctrine as is radio.
Sorry, did a search and didn’t find it.
It happens :) Actually some threads deserve double posts...
The author argues that the "egocentric Internet" is harmful to our democracy. People should be forced by government to read opinion which they would not otherwise consider.
Note the use of "hate groups." I have not read the book but I did near a couple of interviews with the author. One interviewer asked Sunstein if his concerns applied to left wing sites -- after a slight delay Sunstein answered, I've never thought of it that way but I suppose they would, yes.
RE: "What would be our response to this?"
Our free speech was defended against foreigners by the blood of past and current patriots. Our free speech must be defended against all threats foreign and domestic by blood: their blood, our free speech.
Through the 1960s until the late 1980s the "Fairness Doctrine" was used effectively as a weapon by liberals and we had an era where liberal gatekeepers in the MSM determined what "news" and issues were. Though by the 1980s the courts were ruling against the need for a Fairness Doctrine. Let's hope the courts can handle it.
This is bull sheet
No one here knows that in Kansas
Aside from a massive campaign against it in all forms of media, a meltdown of the phone and fax lines in Congress and an immediate challenge in federal court...
move any "offending" blogs or other sites to computers outside of the jurisdiction of Big Brother. Let's see the fascist m'fers regulate it then.
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.