Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jailed For An Insult?
Human Events ^ | 01/28/2009 | Robert Spencer

Posted on 01/28/2009 2:14:06 PM PST by Delacon

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” said Barack Obama to Republican leaders Friday. The new president seems to want to make sure that as few people listen to Rush Limbaugh as possible. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) warned Thursday that “legislation is brewing on Capitol Hill that would take away free speech from broadcasters by reinstating a law” -- the infamous “Fairness Doctrine” -- “that would require talk shows to provide equal time coverage of opposing viewpoints on any issues they discuss.”

This would wipe out conservative talk shows like Limbaugh’s by mandating that programming reflecting a liberal perspective be aired for “balance” if the conservative shows are aired at all -- and with the mainstream media already heavily tilted toward the Left, this would effectively stifle voices that dissent from the Left/liberal line. “The ‘fairness doctrine’ is a violation of free speech,” said Enzi.

Nor is that all. The White House website pledges that “President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation…” The problem with this, of course, is that “hate” is in the eye of the beholder, so “hate crime” laws are essentially tools for enforcing officially-endorsed views. It’s another form of censorship.

“Hate crimes” legislation begets “hate speech” legislation. A cautionary tale is unfolding in the Netherlands this week about how dangerous those can be,

Proving that such tools in the hands of the powerful enable them to silence the powerless and crush dissent, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered that Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament and maker of the notorious film Fitna, be prosecuted for “incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims [sic] and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam [sic] with the nazism.”

“The insult of Islamic worshippers”? The very idea of trying someone for insulting someone else is absurd, and unmasks the Dutch initiative as an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who judges what is an actionable insult and what isn’t is the one who has the power to control the discourse -- and that’s what the prosecution of Wilders is all about. If insulting someone is a crime, can those who are insulted by hate speech laws bring suit against their framers?

The action against Wilders is taking place against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference’s efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including “defamation of Islam” that goes under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.”

If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West -- in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this initiative not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.

But of course, it couldn’t happen here: freedom of speech could never disappear in America, right? After all, we have the First Amendment. But the Fairness Doctrine initiative shows that its protections can be chipped away. And “hate speech” laws could be justified by a declaration that free speech is still a constitutional right, but after all, every right has its limits: “hate speech” will be specifically exempted from its protections -- and “hate speech” will be defined to encompass speaking honestly about the actual texts and teachings of Islam that contain exhortations to violence and assertions of supremacism, unless one is referencing such material approvingly as a believer.

For to speak of such things in any other way would be to “insult” Muslims, as has Geert Wilders.

The looming battle over the Fairness Doctrine -- Doctrine essentially an attempt to muzzle political dissent -- will reveal a great deal about what opponents of Islamization stateside can expect next.

Lovers of freedom should be watching the Wilders case very closely -- as President Obama is already making abundantly clear -- it could happen here.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 111th; 1stamendment; bho44; fairnessdoctrine; fitna; freedomofspeech; insult; islam; liberalfascism; limbaugh; localism; obama; robertspencer; rush; wilders
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
The “Fairness Doctrine” is The Censorship Doctrine

Media Research Center's Free Speech Alliance is a fast-growing coalition of organizations and individuals, who, like you, cherish free speech and who have proactively joined to ensure the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” never returns to silence the conservative voice in America.

First enacted by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required radio stations give equal time to all sides on political issues. However, the result wasn’t equal time, it was zero time – as stations simply avoided topics that would fall under FCC equal time rules.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and since then, talk radio has flourished. Conservatives dominate it, and liberals can’t stand it. By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others, and would essentially take control of all forms of media.

In recent months, the groundswell for reinstatement is intensifying. In fact, a growing number of liberal leaders in Washington, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have openly stated their intent to do so.

As Americans, we cannot sit idly by while this gag order on conservative speech is resuscitated. The time to act is now—so when the time comes, we are mobilized and prepared to defend our Free Speech Rights.



Join the hundreds of thousands of citizens taking action now through MRC’s Free Speech Alliance, and our national petition opposing the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Media Research Center’s Free Speech Alliance goal is to mobilize 500,000 citizens to forever end the threat of the Fairness Doctrine and other attacks on Free Speech. Click on this link.
http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=18645182
 
Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.

1 posted on 01/28/2009 2:14:06 PM PST by Delacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Delacon

I didn’t think Bam Bam would jump on this right away. He has to be stopped.


2 posted on 01/28/2009 2:18:48 PM PST by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Unfortunately, your last link doesn’t work.
3 posted on 01/28/2009 2:19:16 PM PST by Rocko (America First -- 0bama Last)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel; steelyourfaith; neverdem; free_life; LibertyRocks; MNReaganite; ...

There was a saying that politics stops at the water’s edge meaning that the US should present a united front in the world arena. Well we all know that ship has sailed. Now the opposite is happening. Certain politicians are joining other countries and foreign organizations as a united front in attacking the US constitution and its institutions. Obama may surf a tidal wave of european born threats to our freedoms onto our own shores. My apologies for the tortured metaphores.


4 posted on 01/28/2009 2:22:40 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon; abb

The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to public broadcast spectrum. Right?

In other words, satellite radio, cable TV, and so forth would not be subject to it. Only AM, FM, UHF and VHF TV. Correct?

Not that I’m in favor of it (which I’m definitely not), nor do I think it’s “harmless” (I think it’s VERY harmful).

However... the blowback from a reinstituted fairness doctrine might just be the accelerated death of the broadcast media, and an explosive new subscriber rate to e.g. satellite radio.

That might be kinda cool.


5 posted on 01/28/2009 2:23:08 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rocko

Thanks for the heads up. I’ll correct it.


6 posted on 01/28/2009 2:24:10 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
The new president seems to want to make sure that as few people listen to Rush Limbaugh as possible.

And has most likely increased Rush's listenership in the process.

7 posted on 01/28/2009 2:24:48 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

8 posted on 01/28/2009 2:26:16 PM PST by America2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
the knife cuts both ways. NPR and the other LIB rats would all start complaining when and if this takes effect. They are going after the select few with buckshot and the collateral damage is going to be horrendous.
9 posted on 01/28/2009 2:34:22 PM PST by IllumiNaughtyByNature (If the Average nObama Voter is Antyhing Like Peggy Joseph, The Next 4 Years Will Be A Hoot!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
“The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to public broadcast spectrum. Right?:The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to public broadcast spectrum. Right?”

That's what it should apply to, if everyone follows the rules. If someone rewrites the rules to cover other communications channels, then anything could happen.

Since The One's goal is to eliminate dissent, I expect he'd write something that covers any channel that could hurt The Party's dissemination of ideas and knowledge.

He'll likely go after talk radio, but consider too all the web sites where we can see real climate data as opposed to the stuff Gore spews.

The first effect will be as you predict, I think, with many radio stations folding when the money-making hosts are gone.

10 posted on 01/28/2009 2:37:56 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
In other words, satellite radio, cable TV, and so forth would not be subject to it. Only AM, FM, UHF and VHF TV. Correct?

Well what about streaming media (voice and TV) delivered via wireless internet services on frequencies previously allocated to TV broadcasting?

11 posted on 01/28/2009 2:40:34 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

>> If someone rewrites the rules to cover other communications channels, then anything could happen.

I see your point, but as a practical matter, it would be very difficult, if not intractable, to control Internet content. Then too, there are free speech issues with trying to impose “fairness” on paid subscriber channels that I don’t think the Supremes could ignore. I wouldn’t put it past the communists to try, however.

>> many radio stations folding when the money-making hosts are gone.

If I remember correctly, AM radio was in the doldrums until President Reagan rescinded the Fairness doctrine... then it exploded. A renewed Fairness Doctrine might kill AM. Who the hell would listen to music on AM?

Side point: I would almost — ALMOST — be in favor of a “fairness doctrine” if every program INCLUDING NEWS AND PRIMETIME TEEVEE was included. Just think, a 1/2 hour of “news” plus a half hour of conservative rebuttal! Or, “Will and Grace”... followed by a Christian sitcom with a clear anti-homo message! I’m not serious... but I’m almost serious.


12 posted on 01/28/2009 2:50:00 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick; Delacon

It is my thinking (and it is only conjecture) that the internet will eventually moot the fairness doctrine, the FCC, advertising limits, censorship and all such other constraints on information sharing of just about any kind.

Much as movable type ended the Roman Catholic Church’s monopoly on Bible ownership, the internet will shatter today’s puny political shackles.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P8014/index2.html
The Information Age and the Printing Press: Looking Backward to See Ahead[1]


13 posted on 01/28/2009 2:51:29 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

“However... the blowback from a reinstituted fairness doctrine might just be the accelerated death of the broadcast media, and an explosive new subscriber rate to e.g. satellite radio.”

I think you are correct. Conservative talk radio makes money. if they were prohibited from broadcasting Satellite media would flourish by picking up the conservative talk shows. I already listen to Hannity and a bunch of others on Sat and only tune to AM to hear Rush.


14 posted on 01/28/2009 2:51:35 PM PST by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I hereby volunteer to be the token liberal counter to all of rushes comments ! I can make liberals look worse than the idiots they are with my version of their side ! Sort of a butt head rebuttal per se.......


15 posted on 01/28/2009 2:51:47 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

>> Well what about streaming media (voice and TV) delivered via wireless internet services on frequencies previously allocated to TV broadcasting?

Who controls the spectrum? Does the FCC license it to a few lucky owners? Or can anyone broadcast there? And, is it free for all to receive it, or is it “scrambled” like satellite and you have to pay for a key to unsubscribe it?


16 posted on 01/28/2009 2:52:59 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
“However... the blowback from a reinstituted fairness doctrine might just be the accelerated death of the broadcast media, and an explosive new subscriber rate to e.g. satellite radio.”

Who is likely to control the launch and control of the satellites?

Who controls the frequencies the satellites use to communicate with the ground?

17 posted on 01/28/2009 2:53:46 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

The lefties already have the MSM, PBS, NPR, etc. that are their propoganda machine. Of course, they deny that they are liberal media, but sponsors of talk radio know the audience of the conservative shows ARE wage-earners and buyers of goods and services. Unlike Lefties, who have to be funded by TAXPAYERS because their voterbase ain’t got two nickels to rub together, and is dependent on handouts for their survival.


18 posted on 01/28/2009 2:54:19 PM PST by traditional1 ("The American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; LS

Of likely interest to you two.


19 posted on 01/28/2009 2:55:55 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
Who controls the spectrum? Does the FCC license it to a few lucky owners? Or can anyone broadcast there? And, is it free for all to receive it, or is it “scrambled” like satellite and you have to pay for a key to unsubscribe it?

There are all sorts of new services that are supposed to start up for customers of companies that lease spectrum from the FCC. The ironic thing is that I bet it is much more wasteful of spectrum for 10 million people to stream the same program to their wireless devices at various times of day than it is for one radio station in each market to broadcast the same program once.

20 posted on 01/28/2009 2:58:20 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Delacon; knighthawk

People here are starting to figure out that the Wilders persecution does not just affect the Dutch.


21 posted on 01/28/2009 3:03:58 PM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
As I have been saying, Rush needs to be careful.

His biggest asset is his brain, his greatest flaw is his ego. I suspect that the plan is to insult his ego enough that Rush reacts in a way that will take him down. It has happened before, but I hope that Rush has learned how to control himself.

22 posted on 01/28/2009 3:05:03 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
Really? Controlling the Internet would be easy, just ask China. Get the major hosting and search sites to play ball, and then go after smaller guys.
23 posted on 01/28/2009 3:06:28 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Those are good questions.

I think the relative “freedom” of satellite broadcasting is due to the sheer number of choices made available by huge bandwidth. Instead of fighting over half hour time slots, an opposing view can have a whole damn channel! (And sink or swim according to the relative popularity of that view.) It’s a different proposition from having only a few channels and trying to make each of them “fair” within itself.

As for launch... several countries can now get your satellite into the air.

I will confess that I’m no expert on the technology or its business aspects — and, again, you bring up provocative points.

I hope that someone who knows more about it will enlighten us.


24 posted on 01/28/2009 3:07:03 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: abb

Well China and the Middle East do a pretty good job of controlling the internet in their respective countries. Hell they even have Yahoo and Google under their thumb and those two mega companies are outside their jurisdiction. Nah, look for the internet to first be taxed and if it can be taxed it can be controlled.


25 posted on 01/28/2009 3:07:13 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
There's an old story that goes like this:

Two men are talking about "rights" and the Constitution.

The first man askes the second man, "Do you believe in the First Amendment right to free speech?"

The second man replies, "Absolutely!"

The first man then asks, "Do you believe in the Second Amendment right to carry arms?"

The second man says, "No, I don't believe people should own guns."

The first man then says, "Then shut the heck up!"

-PJ

26 posted on 01/28/2009 3:09:05 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

>> Controlling the Internet would be easy, just ask China.

Turns out it’s really *not* that easy, even for China. And it may be a bit of hyperbole to fear at this point that our government can and would turn into one as repressive as Red China. Not impossible, but unlikely IMHO. And if it comes to pass, what they do with the internet won’t matter to me, because I will already have been killed trying to stop it. If you know what I mean.


27 posted on 01/28/2009 3:10:28 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

“The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to public broadcast spectrum. Right?”

Wrong. There already are efforts to apply the fairness doctrine to the internet because it also is a thorn in the side of those that would like to silence dissent.


28 posted on 01/28/2009 3:14:47 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Delacon; Nervous Tick

A pertinent passage from some recent reading.

Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union – Scott Shane
Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, 1994, 324 pp.
Chapter 3: What Price Socialism? An Economy Without Information

Pp. 77-78

My informal survey suggested that some of the longest lines in Moscow were for shoes. At first I assumed that the inefficient Soviet economy simply did not produce enough shoes, and for that reason, even in the capital, people were forced to line up for hours to buy them. Defitsit, shortage, was a workhorse of colloquial Soviet speech. The adjectival form, defitsitny, had become a term of praise, since everything desirable was in short supply: Look at this pottery I found – it’s very defitsitny. So they needed to make more shoes, I figured. Then I looked up the statistics.

I was wrong. The Soviet Union was the largest producer of shoes in the world. It was turning out 800 million pairs of shoes a year – twice as many as Italy, three times as many as the United States, four times as many as China. Production amounted to more than three pairs of shoes per year for every Soviet man, woman, and child.

The problem with shoes, it turned out, was not an absolute shortage. It was a far more subtle malfunction. The comfort, the fit, the design, and the size mix of Soviet shoes were so out of sync with what people needed and wanted that they were willing to stand in line for hours to buy the occasional pair, usually imported, that they liked.

At the root of the dysfunction was the state’s control of information. Prices are information – the information producers need in order to know what and how much to produce. In a market for product as varied in material and design as footwear, shifting prices are like sensors taped to the skin of a patient in a medical experiment; they provide a constant flow of information about consumer needs and preferences. When the state controlled prices, it deprived producers of information about demand.

The shoe factory boss churned out shoes to meet the Plan, a production quota set by bureaucrats who reported to Moscow’s hulking Gosplan, the State Planning Committee. The shoes were priced according to arcane formulae by another gos-institution (for gosudarstvo, state), Goskomtsen, the State Price Committee. The shoes were distributed by another beefy bureaucracy, Gossnab, the State Supply Committee. If the shoe factory boss was smart, the might produce 10 percent over plan, wind himself a bonus, and be named a Hero of Socialist Labor. But as far as the consumer was concerned, the factory manager operated in the dark, without any information from the market, without feedback.

Indeed, the factory’s real customer was the state, not the consumer. The state purchased all the shoe factory’s production, good, bad, or indifferent. The consumer’s choices were not allowed to enter into the matter. So, driven by the tireless efforts of the shoe factory hero and those like him, gross national product might rise and the Politburo might express satisfaction at the obvious economic progress. But on the street the picture looked less triumphant: many stores had bins of clunky shoes sitting around unbought, while down the street hundreds of people sacrificed their mornings waiting for imports.

The vague impression in the West that the Soviet economy was merely an enfeebled version of a Western economy was inaccurate. It was a different beast altogether. It was dreadfully inefficient, stubbornly resistant to change, but capable of huge feats of production. The statistical yearbooks, with their selective but impressive tables of “Comparison with Leading Capitalist Countries,” proved as much.

The shoes Soviet industry produced might end up in a landfill, but comrade, it could produce shoes.


29 posted on 01/28/2009 3:15:02 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: abb

We’ve already seen the Mark Steyn case in Canada come perilously close to shutting him down; and the minister in Sweden or Finland, can’t remember, who was acquitted-—but only after a trial-—of “hate crimes” for (I think) discussing the biblical view of homosexuality.


30 posted on 01/28/2009 3:18:15 PM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Delacon; abb

>> There already are efforts to apply the fairness doctrine to the internet because it also is a thorn in the side of those that would like to silence dissent.

I know the libs would give their left nut to control the Internet. However, it’s nearly an intractable problem. What’s more, I’ve never seen a serious attempt by a lawmaker to impose censorship or “fairness” on the net.

(By “serious attempt”, I mean for example a proposed draft of a bill to include the Intranet in the fairness doctrine. Not just liberal blather, which they do on a regular basis.)

Do you have a link or other source that indicates otherwise?


31 posted on 01/28/2009 3:27:43 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LS

Commonwealth countries don’t have equivalent constitutional protections to our Bill of Rights. Do they?

Not saying our “rights” couldn’t be trampled, but I think we do begin with a huge advantage. So comparing us to Canada (or Britain) — or Sweden, which also doesn’t have such protection — may not be apples and apples.


32 posted on 01/28/2009 3:30:39 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
F-0!!!
33 posted on 01/28/2009 3:38:23 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick; LS; Delacon

One thing to think about is that since the internet came along, the music industry has tried everything under the sun to prevent file sharing (which is merely information sharing), all to no avail. Video clips go viral within moments of posting. YouTube cannot control them out no matter how hard they try.

Movies are available on the ‘net within hours of their release. It appears that most anything digitized cannot be hemmed up.

I see government’s efforts to control political speech to be no more successful than that of media companies trying to control their content.

Merely my thinking, of course.


34 posted on 01/28/2009 3:39:10 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
Well my own republican congressman Mike Castle a few years back led the charge to impose a sales tax on internet commerce(this from a state that has no sales tax and that might be why he led the charge). If it can be taxed, it can be controlled. But here ya go:

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites.
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx

35 posted on 01/28/2009 3:41:20 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: abb

>> I see government’s efforts to control political speech to be no more successful than that of media companies trying to control their content.

That extends to political finance, as well. The only thing holding a candidate to obeying campaign finance laws is the candidate’s integrity. It’s not a technical challenge to funnel large amounts of money — domestic AND foreign — to a candidate using (guess what?) the Internet as a tool.


36 posted on 01/28/2009 3:42:52 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

>> But here ya go:

This is not an example of a serious attempt to actually DO it.

This is just someone who, like you, is sounding the alarm that it could happening — without offering any concrete evidence, just opinion.

Mind you, I’m not disagreeing with you that it would be a bad thing. On the other hand, I still haven’t seen any real evidence that it’s imminent, indeed if it’s even possible. So I’m not going to get my adrenalin pumping over it just yet.


37 posted on 01/28/2009 3:47:16 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: abb

Well the internet is still the wild west of the technology age but yes indeed efforts to control it have succeeded. Napster is a hollow shell compaired to what it was so no, not to no avail. The US government is obviously nipping around the edges on this powerful medium of free speech. When they feel that they can get away with biting a big chunk, they sure as hell will.


38 posted on 01/28/2009 3:47:40 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
“So I’m not going to get my adrenalin pumping over it just yet.”

Thats ok. I am all for delegating vigilance. I'll keep getting my adrenalin pumping over this issue. You worry about other things. If you feel the need, you know where I'll be(keyword: fairness doctrine).:)

39 posted on 01/28/2009 3:52:30 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Napster is a hollow shell compaired to what it was so no, not to no avail. The US government is obviously nipping around the edges on this powerful medium of free speech. When they feel that they can get away with biting a big chunk, they sure as hell will.

As soon as Napster folded, ten and more popped up to take its place. As evidence I cite the total ineffectiveness of the RIAA with all its resource to slow down file sharing (information distribution) one whit.

And to be sure, I agree Central Government will attempt censorship, but it will fail, I opine. See 'Gutenberg,' 'Bible,' and 'Roman Catholic Church.'

40 posted on 01/28/2009 3:53:47 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Cool. My poor adrenal glands are about all squeezed out over the bailout and other ‘Bammy boondoggles. They could use a break! :-)


41 posted on 01/28/2009 3:54:25 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Party? I don't have one anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
That extends to political finance, as well. The only thing holding a candidate to obeying campaign finance laws is the candidate’s integrity. It’s not a technical challenge to funnel large amounts of money — domestic AND foreign — to a candidate using (guess what?) the Internet as a tool.

Exactly. The One's just completed campaign drove a stake through the heart of McCain-Feingold more effectively than a hundred court rulings. The pattern's been set. Money is fungible and so is digitized information.

42 posted on 01/28/2009 3:58:37 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

I don’t believe the fairness doctrine will be brought back...anytime soon. But I’ll be watching carefully...I take the 1st amendment very seriously.


43 posted on 01/28/2009 4:24:52 PM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: abb
“And to be sure, I agree Central Government will attempt censorship, but it will fail, I opine. See ‘Gutenberg,’ ‘Bible,’ and ‘Roman Catholic Church.’”

Well I am not as optimistic. While I agree that the human desire for freedom will always ultimately prevail, efforts to control that freedom by government will always drive towards excess until that very human spirit rebels. There is an ebb and flow. It is inevitable and the founders knew this. That's why they put pen to paper to try and slow the tide and created the constitution. Honestly I'd be surprised if any of them thought that our government would last as a republic for as long as it has. These things happen in small increments and to assume that the government wont be able control the Internet is wishful thinking. Btw, owning a bible(or version of the bible) can still get you killed in many countries, and many more before now. And catholics weren't as free as protestants even in this country for most of our own country's history.

44 posted on 01/28/2009 4:35:10 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Well I am not as optimistic.

I think you are more optimistic than you let on. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting here and trying to educate people on how the Fairness Doctrine might be re-imposed. Hopeless people aren't proactive.

I have a brother that way. For fifty years, he's been bellyaching about the death of conservatism. But does he ever get up off his dead ass and do anything? No. I always talk about doing this or studying that or working for candidates and so forth. His response is to tell me I'm wasting my time; it's too late; "they've" taken control; yadda, yadda, yadda.

The day I get like that is the day I'm slashing my wrists. I'm going down fighting.

45 posted on 01/28/2009 4:45:56 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy

“I don’t believe the fairness doctrine will be brought back...anytime soon. But I’ll be watching carefully...I take the 1st amendment very seriously.”

Look for the terms localism and diversity to be used in the context of broadcast regulation. Of course they aren’t going to call it the fairness doctrine anymore. Like global warming being called climate change, amnesty being called immigration reform, increased government spending being called stimulus, the left isn’t going to call it fairness doctrine anymore. They are going to insist that the brunt of broadcasting be devoted to “local opinion” thereby shutting down the big names in talk radio and dividing and conquering.


46 posted on 01/28/2009 4:51:53 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Good point...local station strategy.


47 posted on 01/28/2009 4:53:55 PM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy
I don’t believe the fairness doctrine will be brought back

It may not be called that. Just hope that it is easily reversible when the next RINO administration takes over.

48 posted on 01/28/2009 5:00:25 PM PST by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: abb

“The day I get like that is the day I’m slashing my wrists. I’m going down fighting.”

Well ya can’t go down fighting if ya slash your wrists, so don’t.:) Just keep on fighting and get your licks in. It is possible to be a pessimist about the future yet still be hopeful for mankind.


49 posted on 01/28/2009 5:22:19 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature

I agree. The studies are everywhere. The news media invented the method to demonstrate bias, and it can be used against them. Want a fairness doctrine? No problem. It means that NPR’s cast will take a fifty percent cut, the national networks will do likewise, and MSNBC will die the death it has so long deserved.

Plus, Limbaugh takes liberal callers all the time. He can just screeen for a few more, make sure they’re complete morons, and he’s presenting their side.


50 posted on 01/28/2009 5:28:09 PM PST by sig226 (1/21/12 . . . He's not my president . . . Impeach Obama . . . whatever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson