There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”
“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”
“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”
McDowell told BMI the Fairness Doctrine isn’t currently on the FCC’s radar. But a new administration and Congress elected in 2008 might renew Fairness Doctrine efforts, but under another name.
Since liberals cannot put forth a logical argument about anything (not with any truth to it, anyway), they have to get unconstitutional laws passed in order to get air time? Radio and television stations dumped liberal talk show hosts because they suck, nobody listens to them, and there was no revenue in it for the stations or advertisers. Makes sense to me. Now they get a second go at it, courtesy of big brother. Sounds like affirmative action all over again.
JJ: that’s precisely correct. Also, hence the demise of Air America. People tire of Negative talk radio, which was the entire content of AA. What they cannot accomplish in the free market they’ll accomplish by fiat.
BZ
Marxism is sneaking in through the back door in America and it is scary. The Fairness Doctrine and the ‘net neutrality’ debate really is the start of a ‘china-like’ atmosphere here. I posted about this today too!
The mere thought that if the libs take over we could lose our first amendment rights, is scary indeed. O
f course I am sure someone will take it to the supreme court and it SHOULD be shot down, BUT if Obama wins I am sure they will wait until he can appoint a few socialist libs to the bench and then they will put this bill through.
I am sorry, but this is serious stuff and we need to wake up.
I used to think that socialistic rule and even communistic rule was ‘impossible’ here in America and if we were to fall from within that we were a long way from it. But really since liberalism became a force in congress and the Republicans started turning moderate-left some of the laws they have passed and are considering passing are indeed socialistic. Think about the light bulb law that is going into effect in 2012 and all the Global Warming laws that will go into effect that take away our freedom of choice. Taking the next step of losing our right to free speech doesn’t seem out of the question if things keep going downhill and liberals take over.
The trickle down effect of this is horrendous, but I am afraid we are asleep at the wheel. At least some evangelical and conservative voters are who refuse to vote this November. Not that I don’t understand their turmoil, I do as I have reiterated on my blog, but this clearly is an election of the best of the two evils and it is what it is.. Deal with it or we will end up becoming a third world country.
The sad part about this is that McCain knows this. He knows Obama is a socialist/marxist. He knows our choice is to pick him if we want to continue to have a voice or pick Obama if we want to be totally snuffed out. That is why I think McCain will pick Lieberman or someone very moderate.
great post and really good comments. I wish I disagreed! I wish I COULD disagree.
But, it’s all too true.
But, the fairness doctrine is already in effect, folks.
Try to Google things and expect both sides linked..NOT.
Frontpagemag.com used to get hundreds of comments a day, it’s about 1/3 of that now. It’s because they’re rarely linked anymore by Google!
I had read how Lord Monckton (who was one of the scientists who won the Nobel with Gore) has changed his mind now and stands AGAINST Gore in his claim warming is caused by humans. When he did come out and stand against Gore, there were a few terrific articles about his supporting the other side now and bemoaning that they’re not listened to.
NOW? He’s GONE. weeks later, I was asked to find that article again. NADA. I had to REALLY dig to find anything and the great pieces were NOT THERE.
There’s already plenty of proof of this doctrine in the works…but we’re not complaining, we’re sleeping at the wheel.
hold on to your blogs, folks. WE’re next.
If the “Fairness” bit goes thru watch them try to expand it to newspapers, magazines and books. Sound like a familiar process? Communism and the Nazis anyone?
Stupid people elected the wicked witch of the west to be the Speaker of the House. It was a horrible decision and the entire country has to pay the price for it.
Well, Pelosi is out trying to sell a book she wrote that no one wants while Republicans and some Democrats are in the House trying to get a bill passed to allow us to drill for our own oil. She is what is holding everything up and if there is any justice at all the witch will melt because of all of this.
Let justice be done! 🙂
Remember how it had to be dragged through court that blogging was *not* contributing to a campaign?
Remember who wanted the legislation who made that question possible?
I do have qualms about both sides of the ticket, and freedom of speech is one of those things I’m not too fond of with either ‘side’ these days.
All: what part of the FIRST AMENDMENT do politicians NOT understand? Besides possibly ALL of it??
BZ
Ouch…. Looks like both sides of the border are fighting marxist creep … one of these days were gonna have to pull out the roach spray….
I think the founding fathers should have stopped with: “Congress shall make no laws”
Government by suggesting people do things!
The government should only be able to mandate a “Fairness” Doctrine when a particular outlet has accepted and used government funding. NPR and Academia come to mind. However, you won’t hear liberals complaining about the bias on NPR or the college campuses.