Will the ACLU Fight the "Fairness Doctrine"

[ralph124c]

Apparently, the GOV. is looking into forcing AM radio talk shows into presenting opposing (read “left wing”) points of view. I figure this is because AirAmerica flopped badly.
Anyway, would the ACLU defend against this rather egregious infringement of our 1st Amendment rights?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ralph124c

Apparently, the GOV. is looking into forcing AM radio talk shows into presenting opposing (read “left wing”) points of view. I figure this is because AirAmerica flopped badly.
Anyway, would the ACLU defend against this rather egregious infringement of our 1st Amendment rights?

This claim is begging for a cite. It’s on its knees, hands clasped to its breast, tears streaming down its face, sobbing, “Cite, please, will you only give me a cite!”

[Gfactor]

“Administration says again: Obama opposes bringing back the ‘fairness doctrine’” Administration says again: Obama opposes bringing back the 'fairness doctrine'

@the article

Though Obama had said before that he opposes reviving the doctrine, the issue has been revived in recent days (particularly on conservative blogs and websites) because White House spokesman Robert Gibbs and Obama adviser David Axelrod each demurred when asked about the administration’s position – saying they would leave it up to the Federal Communications Commission to address.

That’s what I found.

[Frank]

While there is some speculation that some members of Congress are considering an attempted revival of the Fairness Doctrine, that would not require that ralph124c’s favorite shows contain liberal content.

[Hamlet]

If I may.

Apparently, Sarah Palin is going to start hunting people from helicopters. Will the Republican party fight her?

[FriarTed]

I don’t think it’s going to happen anyway. Much as some Congressfolk might want it & threaten it, Pres. Obama knows it’ll galvanize the opposition with a solid cause and thus backfire.

[Kimstu]

@ralph124c

Apparently, the GOV. is looking into forcing AM radio talk shows into presenting opposing (read “left wing”) points of view.

Do you have a cite for this? AFAICT, recent legislative activity on this issue has taken the exact opposite form: namely, it’s been Republican legislators proposing laws that would prohibit the revival of the Fairness Doctrine. But there have been no Democratic legislators proposing laws to revive it (although a few have said they’d be in favor of it), and President Obama is on record as opposing it. Wiki.

@ralph124c

Anyway, would the ACLU defend against this

The most recent ex-President of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen, stated as far back as 1994 that she thinks the ACLU would likely not consider the Fairness Doctrine consistent with First Amendment protections if it were to be implemented today. Detailed statement here:

@Nadine Strossen

We have historically supported the Fairness Doctrine, although I’ve dissented from that position, as have other prominent people within the ACLU. Our basis for supporting it was so narrow and so historically contingent that I really have my doubts as to whether even the Fairness Doctrine itself would be reaffirmed if the ACLU National Board took another look at it. It was based on the notions of spectrum scarcity and of government having conveyed a public trust, if you will, to the broadcasters. Both facts have changed substantially. We have never taken that position with respect to any other media and certainly have never taken it with respect to print media.

In Turner Broadcasting v. FCC we have some of these issues. I think it’s going to be one of the most important First Amendment decisions from the Supreme Court for many years. It will force the court to address the extent to which the cable industry should be dealt with more like the print media, which is not subjected to governmentally imposed access requirements, or the extent to which cable will be treated more like TV and radio, with their Fairness Doctrine-type constraints.

To the extent that you can show in particular communities that the cable company is given a government monopoly and nobody can come in there and compete, it is absolutely fair to impose common carriage-type requirements on them. [A “common carrier,” such as a phone company, must provide service to all legitimate customers and cannot make editorial decisions about their speech.] I don’t think they can use a government-bestowed monopoly to engage in content-based or viewpoint-based distinctions as to who can use their medium any more than a telephone company can. We also recognize that cable companies do serve as publishers themselves. They create programming, so we argue for a modified common-carriage approach. That’s the same approach we take to the whole National Information Infrastructure. You have to be sure that it is an open highway for all comers to exercise their voices, so long as it is the only game in town. It cannot serve as a bottleneck preventing diverse speech. But beyond that, you have to let it exercise its own First Amendment rights.

[Oakminster]

@ralph124c

Apparently, the GOV. is looking into forcing AM radio talk shows into presenting opposing (read “left wing”) points of view. I figure this is because AirAmerica flopped badly.
Anyway, would the ACLU defend against this rather egregious infringement of our 1st Amendment rights?

You know that the ACLU has represented Nazis on First Amendment grounds in the past, right?

Cite

[Richard_Parker]

Nadine Strossen, who just this year ended her long-running Presidency of the ACLU, had this to say:

In the past, the ACLU supported the Fairness Doctrine. But Strossen, now a professor at the New York School of Law, said that was a mistake.

The doctrine was put in place in the 1940s. Because radio stations were the only broadcast media outlets at the time, regulators believed that all viewpoints had to be aired.

That’s not the case today, when anyone with a computer and Internet access can launch their own blog or podcast.

Strossen said the Fairness Doctrine sounds good in theory. But in reality, past administrations used it to punish their critics.

“In practice,” she said, “the Fairness Doctrine was systematically abused by every administration.”

She has long opposed the Fairness Doctrine, and I think it is safe to say that the ACLU would oppose it if introduced. Though, like all such organizations, there probably isn’t unanimity on the issue.

ETA: whoops, missed the other posts. Well, this is even more evidence.

[haymarketmartyr]

Can somebody without an axe to grind explain to me why this is the new cause celebre among the Right wing these days?

In case nobody noticed, Rush had no power at all in this past election. He was impotent. Does the right wing think for a mintue that somehow, someway they are actually reaping some real benefits of talk radio?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@haymarketmartyr

Can somebody without an axe to grind explain to me why this is the new cause celebre among the Right wing these days?

Everybody loves a martyr, that’s why. And everybody loves to be a martyr, especially when it’s just a game of pretend and no actual martyrdom is involved.

I do wonder whether cultures lacking a Christian heritage have quite as much fun as we do dressing up in martyr’s clothes. Can anyone shine light on this?

Daniel

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The Fairness Doctrine would not abridge free speech anyway. All it does is try to provide equal access to public airwaves. It doesn’t stop anybody from saying anything, and it doesn’t apply to cable TV or print media or to the internet. It about not letting one side hog the publicly owned microphone.

It’s not coming back, but even if it did, there would be no civil rights issue for the ACLU to pursue. It wouldn’t lay a finger on the First Amendment. You would still have a right to say anything you wanted. The FD just wouldn’t allow one political party to monopolize airwaves owned by the taxpayers.

The real irony of this is that if lefties dominated AM radio, the righties would be crying little bitches about it and DEMANDING the Fairness Doctrine be brought back.

I used to be against it, but the more I think about it, the more I thinkit would be a pretty good idea. These are publicly owned airwaves, not private. Why should only one political party be allowed to propagandize on them? It was especially bad under Bush, because the Bush administration was feeding (and the GOP continuses to feed) these talk radio assholes their talking points and memos everyday. It basically allowed for people like Sean Hannity to be an unfiltered, unopposed mouthpiece for the government. It’s an American Pravda in the making.

[Frank]

@haymarketmartyr

Can somebody without an axe to grind explain to me why this is the new cause celebre among the Right wing these days?

Because something has to be. Rather than stop, and think, and choose their direction according to their principles and beliefs, they’re simply throwing random shit at the wall in the hopes that - God knows what, 'cause they sure don’t - something sticks.

[Oakminster]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I do wonder whether cultures lacking a Christian heritage have quite as much fun as we do dressing up in martyr’s clothes. Can anyone shine light on this?

Daniel

Why don’t you ask these guys…

Muslims protesting Danish cartoons

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Oakminster

Why don’t you ask these guys…

Muslims protesting Danish cartoons

Huh–I always thought JudeoChristian included Islam, but apparently the term I’m looking for is Abrahamic religions. Certainly Islam is infamous for the disproportionate number of wanna-be martyrs among its followers, I agree.

Daniel

[Kimstu]

[hijack]

@LHoD

I do wonder whether cultures lacking a Christian heritage have quite as much fun as we do dressing up in martyr’s clothes. Can anyone shine light on this?

Oh Og almighty, they certainly do. Check out any of the various extreme Hindutva or Hindu-nationalist websites to see a majority group of eight hundred million-plus people, constituting about 80% of their national population and the overwhelmingly dominant cultural and religious presence in their country, portrayed as an abused group of heroically suffering victims. It does make rather a refreshing change to see Christians being depicted as (among) the oppressors, though.
[/hijack]

[RaftPeople]

@FriarTed

I don’t think it’s going to happen anyway…

I’m not so sure, Sarah is a pretty good shot and probably has access to helicopters.

[Frank]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Huh–I always thought JudeoChristian included Islam, but apparently the term I’m looking for is Abrahamic religions.

That’s all right; you didn’t say “JudeoChristian” either.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Frank

That’s all right; you didn’t say “JudeoChristian” either.

:smack: so I didn’t. Sometimes my fingers and my brain, they don’t match up.

In any case, Kimstu answered the question I intended to ask. Sounds like it’s not a feature unique to our culture.

Daniel

[Ca3799]

The only time I’ve ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine was on a right wing radio or television show. Sean Hannity was taking about it today on his radio show, but I’ve heard it mentioned by several talk show hosts since before the election.

The right wing radio show guys are saying that Democrats want to revive the FD, were talking about it with the President as recently as this last weekend, and they they are now “in exile” or have had to “go underground”.

I just assumed that since they were saying it, it was a lie. As near as I can tell, this is the case.

Wiki said the topic had been very, very, briefly discussed by a couple of Democrats recently and has some ditiations going back aboput a year, but that no Democrats are working on any bills about the topic. FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

I don’t think a fairness doctrine (by whatever name) is a good way to handle the sickening overabundance of right wing talk shows (specifically radio).

I think there should be more “normal” people with radio shows that cover a broader spectrum and that someone, somewhere (whoever they may be) should put some effort into this.

To this end, I have written my local radio stations and other places asking for more balanced shows. We should all do this if you, like me, are sick of our sick (see Michael Savage- Ick) airwaves. It takes very little time and might help.