Posted on 11/14/2008 7:09:08 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
Barrack Obama seems poised, based on his associates and his appointments to date, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine for American radio programming, If he does that administratively through his naming of a new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, he’ll be taking a page out of King George III’s book of policies toward the American colonists.
Say what?
Isn’t that a bit of a stretch since the number of radio stations in 1776 was shockingly low, and King George did not have a Royal Communications Commission? Well, actually he did, and thereon hangs a tale.
The slogan, “No taxation without representation,” spread when The Stamp Act was passed in 1765. It was repealed a year later, however. British taxes on the American colonies were at their highest in 1769 under The Townsend Act. Those taxes amounted to 6 cents a year on those families using money rather than subsistence and barter. That tax burden was one-third of one percent of the average family’s income. (High taxes were NOT the reason for the American Revolution. But that’s a story for another day,)
The Stamp Act had an additional purpose unrelated to tax revenues. Under the Act, all major documents from court pleadings and deeds to private wills and newspapers, had to be on paper bearing the royal stamp. It was a crime to produce any such document except on stamped paper.
The Royal Governors of the various colonies decided which Americans would be allowed to purchase this essential paper. Private citizens who owned presses and published newspapers were dependent on the royal governors in two ways. First, a goodly part of their income came from publishing government documents and announcements. Second, if they became disfavored by the Governor, they would receive no stamped paper, and would be out of business.
It is true that each colony had a popularly-elected legislature. However, each Royal Governor had an absolute veto; it could not be overridden, So the local laws reflected the will of the Governors, not the people.
The King and Parliament in England and the Royal Governors in the colonies all recognized the dangers of printers publishing whatever they wanted in their newspapers. Only about one third of all colonists could read, and newspapers consisted mostly of broadsheets, two pages front and back. Still, newspapers had a wide impact. Newspapers were passed from hand to hand, and read aloud in taverns and other public places.
The first attempt to control the press in the American colonies consisted of a law forbidding any ownership of a printing press without approval of the Crown. That failed, because presses could be moved and hidden. The Stamp Act had the potential to be more effective because newspapers had to be circulated in public. It was readily apparent whether they were printed on stamped paper. But widespread resistence and some acts of vandalism by the Sons of Liberty caused Britain to repeal the Act.
Consider the reason why we refer to television, radio, and in some circumstances today the Internet, as the “press” and the comparison with President-Elect Obama’s intended policies becomes clear. When freedom of the press was borrowed from the Massachusetts Constitution and incorporated in the third proposed amendment to the US Constitution, the only form of mass communication was broadsheets (which could be bound into books) from hand-crank letter presses, printed one at a time.
It is clear from their writings that the Framers intended to protect the freedom of ALL public communications, particularly on public issues and especially when critical of the government. In America today, most public communications, by volume and impact, have nothing to do with ink on paper. The electronic media are increasingly the venue where public debate takes place, and where criticism of the government will take place – if possible.
Under the Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama Administration may seek to reestablish, the government would tell talk radio how far they can go – what they can, and cannot, broadcast. It will be the electronic version of the Stamp Act by which King George sought to control the most free-wheeling part of American communications of his day.
That effort by the Obama Administration should fail. Today we have a First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... of the press...” And today, for the time being, we have at least five Justices of the Supreme Court who take that Amendment seriously.
- 30 -
John Armor has practiced First Amendment law in the Supreme Court over three decades. He lives in the Blue Ridge of North Carolina. He is counsel to the American Civil Rights Union, www.theacru.org
- 30 -
John / Billybob
Letter from The Republic of Texahoma to President 0bama:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,...”
Under the Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama Administration may seek to reestablish, the government would tell talk radio how far they can go – what they can, and cannot, broadcast. It will be the electronic version of the Stamp Act by which King George sought to control the most free-wheeling part of American communications of his day.
That effort by the Obama Administration should fail. Today we have a First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... of the press...” And today, for the time being, we have at least five Justices of the Supreme Court who take that Amendment seriously.
::::::::::::::
Yes, let him show his colors — the colors of tyranny. It remains a blatant tragedy that we are even discussing this matter — the part of the electorate that sees the destruction of American freedom as “good” for America has made a huge, tragic error.
We tried that here, in SC, and you know how it ended up. However, we are ready for a second try. Never give up!
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/04/recurring-ties-between-obama-and.html
Executive Summary: Barack Obama’s relationship with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers appears to go beyond their Woods Fund board membership. Even today, Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, sound utterly unrepentant over their attempts to overthrow the U.S. government in order to install a pro-communist regime.
Perhaps coincidentally, Obama’s name was recently discovered on a captured FARC computer. In the documents, FARC — Colombia’s brand of pro-communist terrorists — implied that it had met with Obama’s representatives to secure his support after the election. Interestingly, Dohrn has traveled to Colombia in the recent past in order to organize against Colombia’s pro-U.S. government. Is it possible that Dohrn served as a cutout between Obama and FARC? That much is not yet clear, but the question deserves to be asked.
The big indicator about the left/right view of separation is that the right/conservatives wouldn’t care - actually, would ENCOURAGE the left to secede. We’d leave them alone, let them form their own socialist dystopia.
However, the left CANNOT leave people be, to live their lives without interference. It’s intrinsic in their ideology to want to control people. This is why they’d use force to keep conservatives from separating themselves.
“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed.”
-Michelle 0bama
Yes, very interesting.
Will we have the mettle of our forefathers?
Involvement=servitude, information=indoctrination.
Those who don’t study history are condemned to repeat it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Stamped docs. Imagine that. And for the past 10 years they’ve been telling us that information just wants to be free. Yet...the ones saying that are heavily vested in intellectual property and valued at multibillions by disenfranchising the bloggers who actually believe free speech—talk—is cheap. Words mean things. Ideas matter.
God save the USA.
Related:
http://www.informationjustwantstobepaid.com/
The FCC has the power to institute a "Fairness Doctrine" (as wrong as it may be) because it has the power to regulate the airwaves on behalf of the public. It is this power that also allows it to fine people for saying the f-bomb on the public airwaves or showing Janet Jackson's nipple. Radio and TV stations do not have a right to broadcast, they have a license to broadcast. That license requires them to adhere to applicable laws.
The autocratic power of the FCC has been a problem for years, and it will continue to be a problem as long as we only complain about it when it works against us. Hopefully, the opposition to a reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine" will prevail, but next time the FCC goes ballistic over a curse word or sexually-suggestive morning radio show, conservatives will rally around their anti-free-speech powers, and the problem will continue.
Indeed. They know they can't survive without the producers. However, I think their big motivation is their drive to control others. They can't stand the thought of someone living an autonomous lifestyle.
Do you realize you just gave Chucky Shummer’s argument for why we need to regulate political speech on the airwaves?
Political speech is just like pornography. They both need to be regulated. If you don’t want the F-word you have to submit to the Fairness Doctrine. Makes absolutely no sense. And the last several decades without the FD attest to that.
People oppose freedom because it has uncomfortable side effects. "Hey! You said something I don't like!" "Hey! Your guns scare me!" "Hey! I don't like your religion!" "Hey! Those people are make me nervous, I want their car searched without a warrant or probable cause!" I'd like to see the FCC lose the power to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, but a lot of conservatives wouldn't be able to tolerate some of the side-effects of that increase in freedom. Hence, we will be stuck with an FCC that has the power to overreach.
The analogy in this post is flawed because the issue is public ownership of the airwaves. You can either support reducing the power of the FCC, and deal with the consequences, or you can support maintaining the power of the FCC and deal with the consequences.
Couple of questions John:
I have read in other sources that the literacy rate of colonials was unusually high. I believe De Toqueville estimated illiteracy rate of one half of one percent. He was astonished at the literacy of the common man in America in 1810. Mothers taught their children to read from the bible. It was one their most sacred obligations as mothers. What is your source for one third literacy?
Another comment, not a question. The tax on paper always seemed to me to be less a tax on communication than a tax on ammunition. One loads a musket (particulary when used as a shotgun, its most common use) thusly:
1. Powder
2. Paper wad
3. Shot or ball
4. If shot, another wad of paper. Cloth was rarely used, particularly with shot as it was too expensive. Nests of paper wasps were highly regarded for loading in rifles or muskets because of their compressive nature.
Since many of our ancestors supplemented their gardens with wild game, usually rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks and the rare deer, the paper tax could also be typified as a tax on protein. This would also explain the revulsion for that tax.
Comments?
Interesting history lesson.
Thanks for the post!
An additional comment.
Another source estimates the English intake of protein to be much less than the colonial daily intake. Whereas we always had enough protein, the estimate of English intake was such that only 20% of the English population had enough daily protein to do what we would consider a good days work. Everyone else made do with a lot less daily protein.
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
Thanks for the informative reply. I will look that up.
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.