The ANTI-'Fairness Doctrine'

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the very first entry in our Bill of Rights passed on March 4, 1789, reads as follows: ''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." [emphasis mine]

 

The current congress has no problem with most of the mainstream press, and the three major television networks; for some reason they all seem to have the same political biases and support all the socialist programs that are being foisted on what is, for the most part, a politically uneducated public.  As long as the mainstream media pushes the leftist agenda, and continues their fawning love affair with the current occupant of the Oval Office, they are safe from the scorn of Democrats.

 

But these leftists, in Congress and in the mainstream media, cannot stand to have their policies and opinions -- their agenda -- held up to the light of day by those who oppose them or who support an alternate view.  They are not content to reply and rebut the opposition; they rather do all they can to demonize people who hold views other than their own(see this posting of February 27, and especially this article from January 31).

 

Many people have held forth on the possibility that this congress will reprise, and the president sign, a new incarnation of the old "Fairness Doctrine" to provide direction to use of the public airwaves  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have us believe that it will provide a more fair, balanced expression of opinion.  Others have suggested that it will rather reduce the radio spectrum to a bland sameness that is less informative and more irrelavent to public discourse.

 

But few of those who have opined on the subject carry as much weight as does a member of the Supreme Court.  Justice Clarence Thomas, a man who knows the depths of hatred from the political left better than most, has shared his ideas, and a column on World Net Daily today brings them to the public.  The Fairness Doctrine is, says Justice Thomas, a Deep Intrusion into the rights of broadcasters:

 

For the first time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is offering some legal insight about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it's revived and brought before the bench.

  In written discussion on yesterday's ruling cracking down on indecent language on television, Justice Clarence Thomas called the policy "problematic" and a "deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters."

  The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission.

  There has been widespread fear, though, the policy could be resurrected during the term of President Barack Obama.

  The Pacific Justice Institute, a California-based legal group specializing in the defense of religious freedom  and other civil liberties, is calling the remarks by Thomas "very significant."

  "To my knowledge, this is the first time a sitting Supreme Court justice has weighed in on this issue," Matt McReynolds, a PJI staff attorney, told WND.

  "It could potentially take a lot of steam out of the movement from those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It also provides a lot of ammo to those who have been saying it's unconstitutional. Now we have some validation from a member of the court."

  Thomas is questioning the viability of Supreme Court precedents dating back to the 1960s, long before the explosion of media sources beyond radio airwaves.

  "The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so," Thomas noted.

  "It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media."

  He also noticed "the number of over-the-air broadcast stations grew from 7,411 in 1969 ... to 15,273 by the end of 2004."

  If Congress and the president bring the doctrine back to life, there is no doubt lawsuits will fly.

  "We are prepared to take legal action should it be reinstated," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "Justice Thomas' opinion is very encouraging to everyone who believes in free speech and government non-interference with public debate."

  Meanwhile, as WND is also reporting today, the leader of a newly formed public awareness campaign to alert U.S. citizens about an effort to stifle free speech says he expects local "boards" will be assembled within 90 days to begin censoring talk radio, a move that will come as an "Arctic blast" against the expression of opinion in the United States.

  "I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions," said talk-show host Roger Hedgecock, whose new initiative is called "Don't Touch My Dial."

  "The assault on the First Amendment that is being planned by the government and the extremist Left is not limited to their desire to silence conservative talk radio," Hedgecock said.

  "Newspapers and television are not immune to the anti-First Amendment efforts that are at work here. In addition, the Internet is also a target for receiving the restrictive aspects of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'"

This assault by the left on what is one of the basic tenets of the Constitution is unconscionable, and should be opposed by Thinking People everywhere.  If only the government has the right to propogate ideas, what happens to discussion?  Let me suggest that those who oppose discussion of any view other than their own, do not have a view that can stand scrutiny.  We should be very, very careful.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Internet Fairness Doctrine?

One would think that Attorneys at Law, people who have had legal training and are licensed to practice in these fifty states (not 57 as the current occupant of the Oval Office once said), would have a firm grasp of the intention of the Framers of the Constitution when they drafted the First Amendment.  Yet at the same time as they are contemplating a renewal of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for the public airways, aimed at shutting down any dissenting opinion on talk radio, the current administration in Washington is looking at doing the same thing to those of us who offer an opinion on the internet.  World Net Daily reports this morning:

 

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.

    The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama's friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O'Leary, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech." OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.

    Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

    "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."

    Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory "electronic sidewalks" for the Net. These "sidewalks" would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as "The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet."

"Apparently in Sunstein's world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires," Thierer wrote.

    Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be "too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns." He also acknowledged that it was "almost certainly unconstitutional."

    Perhaps Sunstein's most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book "Nudge," written with Richard Thaler, for a "Civility Check" for e-mails and other online communications.

    "The modern world suffers from insufficient civility," they wrote. "Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don't send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven't learned the rule or don't always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month."

    That's where the "Civility Check" comes in.

    "We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you're about to send is angry and caution you, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?'" they wrote. "(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.' With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather's birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!)."

    Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views:

 

-- In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.

 

-- In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."

 

-- In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ..."

 

-- In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."

    "As one of America's leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics," said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. "He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration's regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team."

    O'Leary disagrees.

    "It's hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein," he says. "Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that 'limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.' If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online - right down to our personal e-mail communications - would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government."

Read that last once more.  Do you want the government routinely reading your e-mail, inspecting it for acceptable content, and then either passing or denying it's delivery to your intended reader?  I can't conceive a less palatable concept to anyone who loves liberty, yet this "leading constitutional scholar" (BHO's words) would deny the right of self expression to all Americans.  Can you imagine the size and scope of that bureaucracy?  Why is it that Democrats want to stop any dissenting opinion?  Is it because their own viewpoint is so weak that they find it difficult to defend?  I'm still searching for an honest liberal ...

 

"What Were You Thinking?"