Apply Fairness Doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel4
  • Start date Start date
C

Cancel4

Guest
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

We can apply the Doctrine to the Web now.


The $787 billion government stimulus package requires the Federal Communications Commission to provide a road map for how potentially billions of future taxpayer dollars should be spent to build or upgrade Internet lines across the U.S. The FCC's effort is expected to be overseen by President Barack Obama's nominee to head the FCC, Julius Genachowski, a former IAC/InterActive Corp. executive and venture capitalist. Mr. Genachowski's confirmation is awaiting Senate action.

Future federal funding for expanding broadband access likely would come through changes to the Universal Service Fund, a $7 billion annual program designed to subsidize phone service in rural areas and to low-income Americans.

The Obama administration says the fund should provide money for broadband, not just phone service.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897361669991013.html
 
try reading a ruling after 1969....early 80s i believe, scotus ruled the doctrine then unconstitutional as the factors for its constitutionality (which should never have been ruled that way, however it was) no longer exist
 
I am fed up with the extreme rightwing racists monopolizing the airwaves with relentless character assassination of President Obama.

Racist opposition to President Obama on the Web should not be allowed either.
 
DNC said:
I am fed up with the extreme rightwing racists monopolizing the airwaves with relentless character assassination of President Obama.

Racist opposition to President Obama on the Web should not be allowed either.
Click to expand...

puh leaze!

air america had its shot. nobody wants to listen to liberal whiners. you lost the radio airwaves war, get over it.
 
Yurt said:
try reading a ruling after 1969....early 80s i believe, scotus ruled the doctrine then unconstitutional as the factors for its constitutionality (which should never have been ruled that way, however it was) no longer exist
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS never ruled that yurt. The FCC decided that it had a chilling effect on communications that outweighed the supposed benefits of neutral news coverage.
 
Watermarx said:
The SCOTUS never ruled that yurt. The FCC decided that it had a chilling effect on communications that outweighed the supposed benefits of neutral news coverage.
Click to expand...

my bad, it was dicta, however, that dicta caused the FCC to nearly dismantle the doctrine....as the court noted...tech advancements make the doctrine unnecessary....

i firmly believe that if any such doctrine were reintroduced it would be struck down as unconstitutional as it in fact limits speech and tech is such that it is no longer necessary...

aren't you the one who said talk radio is dead?
 
from a quick link for anyone's fyi:

...It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law. ***

The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.

http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/fairness_doctrine_is_unconsitutional.htm
 
Yurt said:
so do you support scotus overruling itself so long as new justices get appointed?
Click to expand...


good question: would you support scotus overruling itself on...say, Roe v. Wade so long as new justices were appointed?

What about Plessy?
 
maineman said:
good question: would you support scotus overruling itself on...say, Roe v. Wade so long as new justices were appointed?

What about Plessy?
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause free speech should be overruled. The only really disappointing decision of late was the Retardedly fascistic New London ruling...
 
Threedee said:
Yeah, cause free speech should be overruled. The only really disappointing decision of late was the Retardedly fascistic New London ruling...
Click to expand...

Raich, the exclusionary rule was revisited for the worse, and i'm sure there's one or two more that i'm not remembering right now.
 
Yurt said:
my bad, it was dicta, however, that dicta caused the FCC to nearly dismantle the doctrine....as the court noted...tech advancements make the doctrine unnecessary....

i firmly believe that if any such doctrine were reintroduced it would be struck down as unconstitutional as it in fact limits speech and tech is such that it is no longer necessary...

aren't you the one who said talk radio is dead?
Click to expand...

I think it would probably be struck down as well. I'm just pointing out that the SCOTUS never had any CHANCE to strike it down.
 
The Hate Speech from racists like Bill O Riley, Shawn Hannity and Rush Limpballs has to be stopped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top