Kucinich and the Dems looking to silence Talk Radio Again:

RMNIXON · 01-31-2007, 11:43 PM

'Fairness Doctrine’ is dangerously unfair
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
BY NAT HENTOFF NEWSPAPER ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATION

Many liberals believe they are far more firm in their support of freedom of speech than many conservatives. A strong argument against this stereotyping of both sides is the current campaign to restore the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting by, among others, four liberal Democrat members of Congress — Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont) and Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) and Maurice Hinchey and Louise Slaughter (New York).

The Fairness Doctrine, in effect by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, mandated that broadcast stations devote a reasonable amount of time to discussions of controversial issues of public importance and offer reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard. Stations that failed to adhere to the FCC’s interpretation of “fairness” could lose their license. Accordingly, the government would be in charge of policing the First Amendment — the opposite of what the Founders clearly intended.

Of all justices of the Supreme Court, the most persistent defenders of freedom of speech have been Louis Brandeis, William Brennan and William O. Douglas. In 1973, Justice Douglas thundered: “The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio in order to serve its sordid or its benevolent ends.”

During the 1940s and early 1950s, I was an announcer and reporter on radio station WMEX in Boston. When Fairness Doctrine letters came to the station’s owner, the front office panicked. Lawyers had to be summoned; tapes of the accused broadcasts examined with apprehensive care; voluminous responses sent. After a number of these indictments arrived, the boss commanded that from then on, we would engage in no controversy. In newscasts, we could report controversies, but none of our opinions on public issues could be aired under the station’s auspices. For any other controversial statements by nonstaff members, opposing views had to be given equal time to reply.

This happened at other stations as well. Champions of the Fairness Doctrine emphasized that due to the “scarcity” of stations, the Supreme Court, in its 1969 decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, had been correct in upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine. This rationale came to be known as “the scarcity doctrine.”

In 1984, the Supreme Court came to its senses in FCC v. League of Women Voters. In view of the multiplying number of radio and TV channels, the “scarcity doctrine,” as it applied to broadcasters, diminished free speech, the court ruled. Three years later, the FCC concurred: “The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of (the Fairness Doctrine) restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... (and) actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.”

In 1987, a bill to restore the Fairness Doctrine passed the House by a 3-to-1 margin and the Senate by nearly 2-to-1. President Ronald Reagan, who had been a broadcaster, vetoed the bill because it was “antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.” With Democrats now in control of both chambers, this could happen again, and would very likely extend to FCC bureaucrats’ taking charge of freedom of speech on cable television and the Internet.

There are liberals who preach the need for “diversity of views” in calling for return of the Fairness Doctrine because they bridle at the high ratings of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters. These liberals ignore why we have the First Amendment. As Oliver Wendell Holmes emphasized: “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not the thought that we hate.”

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

__________________________________________________ _______________

It is worst of all on the small radio outlets who would rather drop any controversial broadcast rather than fear the wrath of the fairness police. More sour grapes after the failure of Air America? Even the liberal Alan Colmes took Kucinich to task on Fox last night because he could remember the days as a young radio show host filling out paperwork for Big Brother.

RMNIXON · 01-31-2007, 11:50 PM

Another link with a much sharper tongue:

TheRealityCheck.Org Guest Writer

kinggovernor · 02-01-2007, 12:02 AM

I can't believe this was ever allowed

7960 · 02-01-2007, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I can't believe this was ever allowed

air america failed because it sucked............ expect this to be used to end-run around that failure and pull public money to fund its restart

Kytro · 02-01-2007, 02:01 AM

FCC should not exist

Stylerod · 02-01-2007, 07:45 AM

I can't believe there are Democrats that want to bring it back. Cowards....

motivez · 02-01-2007, 09:52 AM

Shouldn't there be a distinction between 'news' and 'infotainment'?

Scrum · 02-01-2007, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Shouldn't there be a distinction between 'news' and 'infotainment'?

But then people may realize foxnews runs bullshit.

Diesel66 · 02-01-2007, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Shouldn't there be a distinction between 'news' and 'infotainment'?

govt shouldnt be anywhere near that decision

JSmythe · 02-01-2007, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

FCC should not exist

.

RMNIXON · 02-01-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

FCC should not exist

It does not have the justification it once had.

First of all Kucinich and a Democrat Party "Socialist" who backs this move make the false claim the "people" own the airwaves. In other words the government, and they as representatives, they have a right to regulate content as they please. I could not help but to think 'The Peoples Airwaves' sounded so Soviet Union! The government does not own electromagnetic propagation any more than it owns gravity!

The only real justification for the FCC to licence airwaves is the simple fact that you have a very limited number of frequencies and that if you simply let anyone broadcast you will have chaos of overlapping signals. So there is a clear need to licence a broadcast freqency in a given area. But to regulate content, that was just icing on the cake. But now with Cable, Satellite, and internet, actual frequency broadcast is a shrinking market. The FCC is holding on to the last gasp of its power which is why Stern told them to go have sex with themselves and very deeply!

kinggovernor · 02-01-2007, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Shouldn't there be a distinction between 'news' and 'infotainment'?

the consumer should make that decision

Kytro · 02-01-2007, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

But to regulate content, that was just icing on the cake. But now with Cable, Satellite, and internet, actual frequency broadcast is a shrinking market. The FCC is holding on to the last gasp of its power which is why Stern told them to go have sex with themselves and very deeply!

They should have never been given the power to regulate content.

motivez · 02-01-2007, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the consumer should make that decision

Of course, when they're not listening to the public airwaves that have been licensed to private companies under certain conditions.

I haven't really read up on the negative impacts of this, but when it comes to things like NBC, ABC, FOX (non-cable) nightly news, what's the downside?

Rouger2 · 02-01-2007, 08:58 PM

Content needs to be regulated for sexuality because children certainly can listen and we have had a long history of protecting our children and we need to because they are not fully developed and can be overly effected by the content or believe that it is condoned because it is broadcast. Teenagers who are just developing their sexuality and are in the rebellous stage like all animals who at a certain age are ready to go on their own, but we don't let them for good reasons, are particullary venerable.

motivez · 02-01-2007, 09:07 PM

I don't know that I agree with that. I don't like 'censorship,' I like personal responsibility for the parents of those impressionable children. I think parents shouldn't rely on the government to babysit their children through tv, etc.

I like a ratings system that helps parents make informed decisions, I don't like the government making it for them.

JSmythe · 02-01-2007, 09:14 PM

Rouger2,

In Europe they have hard core pornography on broadcast TV. Usually at 9pm and on you can put anything on TV.

Are those societies' children becoming perverts, rapists, or serial killers?

Kytro · 02-01-2007, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Content needs to be regulated for sexuality because children certainly can listen and we have had a long history of protecting our children and we need to because they are not fully developed and can be overly effected by the content or believe that it is condoned because it is broadcast.

No, it does not. It is the job of parents to regulate children's content not society.

kinggovernor · 02-01-2007, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Content needs to be regulated for sexuality because children certainly can listen and we have had a long history of protecting our children and we need to because they are not fully developed and can be overly effected by the content or believe that it is condoned because it is broadcast. Teenagers who are just developing their sexuality and are in the rebellous stage like all animals who at a certain age are ready to go on their own, but we don't let them for good reasons, are particullary venerable.

I agree, just a simple warning to parents should be ok

RMNIXON · 02-01-2007, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

No, it does not. It is the job of parents to regulate children's content not society.

It is also the job of the networks themselves to be responcible to viewers. I think the breast flap durring the Super Bowl would have been corrected more by family viewer outrage than anything the FCC did. The network let MTV set that up without more oversite as to what they would do at halftime. And don't get shocked when you invite Howard Stern onto your show either!