• Home
• About
• Evolution of evolution
• RSS
• Biology 101

4 Responses to “Fairness Doctrine v. Fairness”

1. John Wallace says:
   July 21, 2008 at 12:07 am

   On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), while at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, told reporter John Gizzi, that she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine. The imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would force radio broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing points of view, which would essentially give the government control over what the people can and cannot hear.

   Ms Pelosi also said she supported the efforts of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) who has been very active behind the revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep Slaughter had introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.

   The Democratic leadership knows that they can’t directly pass a “Fairness Doctrine” piece of legislation, so they will most likely try to slip it in under another name or attach it to some ‘must pass’ piece of legislation. Their support of the ‘Fairness Doctrine by any means’ strategy poses a direct threat to American citizens’ constitutonal right of Freedom of Speech.

   The important questions for Americans to ask are: Why is Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats against free speech for the American people? Why are they so determined to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? and why is the Democratic leadership refusing to bring a true piece of Freedom of Speech legislation, The Broadcaster Freedom Act HR-2905, to the floor for a vote?

   I believe that it was the collapse of the radio station “Air America” a Liberal talk station, that has led to this attempt to re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. It appears that if certain political views can’t compete in the world of ideas, then the solution is to pass a law that forces radio stations to air those views.

   I am opposed to any resurrection of the “The Fairness Doctrine,” the 1940’s law that effectively censored political talk radio for many years, because it is a violation of the First Amendment and limits Free Speech. The real issue here is not what you “are able to” see or hear, which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s about placing limitations on the Freedoms you currently have to “choose” what to see or hear.

   In the 1940’s and 50’s, Americans had few choices with only three major networks and there was some validity to the Fairness Doctrine. Today, Americans have an almost unlimited choice of where to get their information: regular TV, cable TV, regular radio, satellite radio, internet, web-blogs, etc., which makes the Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.

   I support the Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR-2905), introduced by Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind) which would prevent these first amendment restrictive regulations from returning. Representative Mike Pence introduced the BFA last June, where it is still awaiting a vote. As of June 25, 2008, two hundred Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition which would force the House to make an up or down vote on the legislation, but an additional 18 signatures are still needed. So far, not one single House Democrat has signed the petition to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.

   It should also be noted that two of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioners have already indicated that they favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine. All that would be needed to reinstitute Fairness Doctrine regulations would be for the next President to appoint a third sympathetic commissioner. Then, the regulations could go back into effect without any vote at all and the constitutional Freedom of Speech rights and guarantees of all Americans would suffer another blow.

   By not bringing the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor for a vote, Speaker Pelosi is attempting to limit the constitutional rights of Free Speech of those American citizens who happen to oppose her political views.

   The constitutional right of Freedom of Speech guarantees that people or organizations have the right to express their ideas without danger of censorship, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that people or organizations with different views must be provided with a meeting hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express their ideas. Those who value the First Amendment, as I do, must oppose the Fairness Doctrine, in any form, as a serious threat to their Freedom of Speech.

   By:
   John Wallace
   Candidate for Congress
   NY’s 20th COngressional District
   www.FreedomCandidate.com

2. Jack Morrison says:
   December 10, 2010 at 7:51 pm

   Your arguments may be fine but I find one serious error in your facts. Some of the Democratic members of the committee are opposed to the action to reinstall the Fairness Doctrine. You stated that they were in favor of it. Check you facts.

3. S. Ruder says:
   July 22, 2011 at 2:06 pm

   In response to John Wallace. Perhaps reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is not the answer. It is, however, naive to think that journalists are not censored. I believe there is more censorship today than ever before. With most of the major media owned by a few powerful corporations, any news or opinions that are contrary to the viewpoint / agenda of the corporation does not get reported. In fact, the news media can now distort the truth or even report lies without repercussions. Is it to the benefit of the United States to hear new that only a few powerful individuals deem appropriate? If reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, eliminates these practices than I would be in favor of such an action.

Leave a Reply