Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Nancy Pelosi's attack on freedom of speech
Nancy Pelosi is again working to reinstate the "fairness doctrine," the long-repealed rule that required broadcasters to present all points of view.
There should be no doubt that this is nothing less than a broadside attack on freedom of speech. With the demise of spectrum scarcity as a reason to ensure balanced access to the airwaves, there is no longer any principled argument in favor of the fairness doctrine. Pelosi's advocacy of its reinstatement is a naked attempt to use the force of law to silence her critics and a grotesque affront to the First Amendment.
13 Comments:
By 
Noocyte, at
Wed Jun 25, 12:27:00 PM:
Further evidence that, as Frank Herbert once observed, one need but lightly scratch a Liberal to expose the closet aristocrat.
These people do not trust the open marketplace, both out of an ideological aversion to its cacophonous and ungovernable vibrancy, and out of an all-too accurate assessment of their ability to compete within it.
Very sad. And very dangerous.
By 
, at
Wed Jun 25, 12:47:00 PM:
Free Speech.
What does that really mean? Only Journalists? Only Newspapers? Only Magazines?
I would suggest that, together with Freedom of Speech, the Constitution guarantees the right of ALL citizens to say and publish their thoughts - political and otherwise - and that, in 1776, speech and print were the only forms available to transmit our words to others.
Today, we have additional forms with which to transmit our words to others. These formats are just an extension of what was available over 200 years ago. The format in no way changes the fact that our speech is still guaranteed and that "the Press" is not Journalists or newspapers, but any form We The People choose to share our speech.
I would argue the pamphleteers in early America were the precursor to talk radio.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is no Constitutional requirement to "balance" free speech. "Free Speech" does not mean "Consensus Speech". It does not mean "Acknowledgement Speech". It does not mean "In Agreement Speech". It does not require the imprimtur of a News Agency or Journalist to be valid.
It is simply, Free Speech.
By , at
Wed Jun 25, 01:12:00 PM:
Seems to me then that Congress should apply the same rules to themselves. If they wish to take a particular position, then they should offer up an equally strong opposing position to whatever it is they're speaking on.
The reality is that talk radio, TV and all other forms of media (print, internet, etc.) offer shows that appeal to people who wish to hear like-minded people discuss stuff, or those they disagree with. Forcing the other point of view is like affirmative action. Put on the token 'conservative' or 'liberal'.
It's an outrage.
By , at
Wed Jun 25, 03:27:00 PM:
I suppose, that her majesty, in the interest of fairness, would 'encourage' the more liberal side of the media to give equal time to the conservative view... but then again... I still believe in Santa Claus
By Escort81, at
Wed Jun 25, 03:56:00 PM:
I am trying to refresh my memory. The rationale for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is that the airwaves used for radio (other than XM/Sirius) and TV (other than cable/sat) are a public good that the FCC is empowered to regulate, and that balanced content with respect to political points of view falls within that regulatory purview? Wouldn't Rush et al migrate to XM the way Howard Stern did?
What other benefits inure to Pelosi and those who side with her on this issue, other than potentially silencing conservative talk radio from the free airwaves? What are the other consequences?
I mean, it's not as if she thinks she has a shot at regulating the content on this blog, or whether this blog can be linked to, or even gets to exist? It's one thing to reinstate a rather archaic rule, quite another to come up with an entirely new mechanism to regulate speech.
My favorite memory of the Fairness Doctrine is from the 1980 election campaign, no Reagan movies were shown on TV, until the late night movie on Election Day, when a local station showed "Bedtime for Bonzo."
By , at
Wed Jun 25, 04:43:00 PM:
Here's a tip: if Pelosi is actually bone-headed enough to attempt reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine, make sure you obtain Washington DC-area motel reservations as soon as possible.
Why? Because you can expect a march on Washington organized by fans of talk radio--both right- and left-wing--that will dwarf anything previously seen in that town. Just think: if only 5% of Rush's weekly audience takes part, you're still talking about a true "Million Man March."
Shucks, if Pelosi and her good-time buddies are so stupid as to ignore such a manifestation, then they'll be simply begging for a world of political hurt.
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Jun 25, 04:47:00 PM:
The FD has cause other weird issues, like in 1973 when the local TV station in LA was running episodes of Star Trek at the same time George Takei was running for LA City Council, and his opponent wanted equal air time.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Jun 25, 07:22:00 PM:
I see no government guarantee of venue, audience, market share, or financial success in the text of the 1st amendment.
By joated, at
Wed Jun 25, 08:23:00 PM:
Stories coming out of the Europe, the middle east and Canada all decry the freedom of speech we have been granted by our First Amendment. It appears Ms. Pelosi has a desire to sign on to their agenda. If so, let her move out of the country.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Wed Jun 25, 10:44:00 PM:
Escort81~
Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would greatly diminish the reach of voices like Rush. I don't have satellite radio, and I have no plan to get it. It is an expense I currently cannot justify with my limited budget. That's what the Dems want: to cut off the "free" audience of millions, so as to reduce conservative talk radio's impact on the political machine in DC. Would the Capitol switchboard have been shut down like it was when Congress tried to sneak Shamnesty through? I doubt it, because it would have taken too long for so many people to become aware of what was going on... Unless Congress acts to make the FCC unable to regulate content for "balance", a President Obama could make the FD a reality without Congress actually reinstating it.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Jun 26, 12:43:00 AM:
Here is an interesting report:
" 'Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,' press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday."
Link:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html?desc=topstory
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Jun 26, 01:02:00 AM:
P.S. O/T Here is another interesting report:
"Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of child rapists."
Link:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06252008/news/nationalnews/obama__supreme_court_off_base_117163.htm
Obama is starting to sound more conservative than John McCain.
By Pax Federatica, at
Thu Jun 26, 07:02:00 PM:
escort81 and Miss Ladybug: IIRC the Fairness Doctrine II proponents are looking to extend it to cable and satellite TV and radio as well. They also have Fox News in mind, not just Rush and his ilk.
This is one of the main reasons why I am voting McCain. I don't know how vigorously he would resist FDII, if at all, but I'm certain Obama won't. Given the choice between "slim" and "none"...
