Clarence Thomas Calls Fairness Doctrine "Unconstitutional"
Washington, D.C. - The heated debate over the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - proposed government regulations of media - surfaced in a surprising new venue yesterday: the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court was ruling on fines levied by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against broadcasters for profanity used by celebrities. The Court upheld the FCC's enforcement actions, and in doing so, Justice Clarence Thomas called into question the validity of previous decisions - some going back forty years - that upheld the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine, which required that radio and television stations give equal time to opposing viewpoints on "public issues," was abandoned by the federal government in the mid-1980's, leading to a dramatic rise in radio talk-show hosts with particular views. Some members of Congress have suggested that the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated to curb the influence of radio talk shows. Broadcasters have strongly protested any attempt to stifle their free speech and have warned that the Fairness Doctrine would be the death knell for conservative and Christian talk radio.
In his concurrence to the FCC decision yesterday, Justice Thomas stated his belief that prior justifications for the Fairness Doctrine - primarily based on scarcity of the broadcast spectrum - are a "deep intrusion into the rights of broadcasters" and are no longer valid, especially with expansion of the broadcast spectrum and the explosive growth of the internet as alternative media. Justice Thomas signaled that, if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated by Congress and the President, a constitutional challenged would be in order.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
If the Fairness Doctrine goes thru by whatever name this administration chooses for it, it will be the beginning of the death of free speech and freedom in general of a once great country. All Americans need to read more history , other than that chosen by teachers and professors. boning up on the Bolshevik revolution would be an excellent starting point.
Radio Stations are businesses. They offer what sells. If few stations offer liberal talk, it is for a reason. Not enough people want to listen, and advertisers won't pay for that. Leave free speech alone.
I agree with Jutice Thomas. Re-instating the so called "Fairness Doctrine" would violate individuala rights. The Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional. The suit of the FCC to hold broadcasters responsible for the profanity of celebrities, for instance, is not only unjust it is also a clear infringement of rights. It's another example of the distortions and corruptions caused by the underlying premise of "your brother's keeper." The Fairness Doctrine should not be re-instated.
Sincerely,
Sylvia Bokor
He's wrong, dead wrong. The airwaves belong to the American people, and the FCC has the duty to see that they are used to serve the public interest. The fairness doctrine was instituted so that a small group of radio station owners could not impose their political philosophy, to the exclusion of all others, on the public. Once Reagan deregulated radio, that's exactly what happened. We can now drive all the way across the united states and hear all-Limbaugh, all the time, and nothing else. We can go to New York city, a liberal city in election after election, and cannot find one talk radio station that is Liberal or Moderate. If we live in South Florida, the one radio station that had liberal talk radio was turned into sports radio. That was because there already was a station in South Florida carrying conservative Republican talkers non-stop. The owners of that station simply didn't want to give Liberal talk radio a voice in that or any other market.
That is not serving the public. We are subjected to hour after hour of conservative, and sometimes slanderous and blatantly dishonest rant by one right-wing talker after another. In most markets it's impossible to find an opposing voice.
That is the curse of Reagan deregulation. Radio was regulated in the beginning so a group of rich men could not control the airwaves. Once regulation was lifted, that's exactly what happened.
Reagan's deregulation practically destroyed our economy , let's re-regulate the airwaves before Reagan's misguided deregulation policies destroy honest discourse and debate in our democracy .
Mr. JayMagoo is, if not disingenuous, completely misinformed. He makes so many false statements and deals in such hyperbole that it's pointless to argue with him. For instance, he claims that: "We can now drive all the way across the united states [sic] and hear all-Limbaugh, all the time, and nothing else."
He is beyond the reach of reason. So I shall direct my comments to those who might want a fuller explanation of the Fairness Doctrine in order to form their own conclusion.
1. The word "fair" refers in this context to the concept of justice. Justice is "the act of judging a man's character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion." [---Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 49] This means that to be just, one must not allow any considerations into one's evaluations other than facts of reality. One may not, for instance, claim that a man's character is foul because, say, his opinions do not agree with yours, or because he chose to vote for a candidate you do not like.
At root, to be just means that one recognize that each man has the right to life, property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to curb any one of those rights is a violation that forfeits one's own. As this applies to the present discussion, it is unjust to force a man to express opinions that are not his, or to provide a forum for those with whom he disagrees.
2. The Fairness Doctrine is a government edict that violates individual rights by forcing a man to provide venues through which others may express opinions with which he disagrees. If, for example, you owned a radio and/or TV station, you would want to broadcast things you agreed with. Those who don't share your opinion, have the right to turn off your broadcast, or to build their own station, or to express their views in a different forum, and so forth. But for government to force you to betray your own views for the sake of another's is tantamount to "thought control." It is the attempt to make you pretend you accept as equally valid views you don't agree with. As such, the Fairness Doctrine endorses force and hypocrisy and cannot do otherwise.
There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. Violating my rights to please your point of view, or violating your rights to please mine does nothing except increase government intrusion into both our lives. If you depend on the government to force me to pretend to believe as you do, you are as much a victim of the government as I. The only difference is you choose to be a victim and I do not.
3. There is no way to administer the Fairness Doctrine justly. Those who own radio and/or TV stations built them with money they earned with their own thought and effort and with money of those who invested in that station. To force owners and investors to voice opinions they don't agree with but you do, violates their property rights.
4. The Fairness Doctrine places a government bureaucrat's whim above your rights (and the rights of all American citizens)---whether you own a radio and/or TV station or not.
5. The government has no "duty" to force any views on anyone. It has only one job: to protect individual rights. To the extent that it increases its power outside of that job, it violates individual rights. Once it starts doing that, it's deuces wild---which is what we have today, a unlimited government power that JayMagoo calls upon to enforce his views on those who don't share them.
6. There is no such thing as "the public interest." There is only the American population of about 300 million with many different individual opinions and interests. When one starts to give content to "public interest" as if it were an entity superior to the individual, you are espousing mob rule---which always ends in gang fighting gang and destruction of law and due process. That, in effect, is what the Fairness Doctrine implicitly advocates.
Sincerely,
Sylvia Bokor
You said:
If we live in South Florida, the one radio station that had liberal talk radio was turned into sports radio. That was because there already was a station in South Florida carrying conservative Republican talkers non-stop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Station owners are about profit not politics . If the liberal talk had been able to generate profit, the owners would not have switched to sports. Why don't you ask the station owners what caused them to switch to sports? I'd wager it was because liberal talk was not profitable. Your assumption that the switch was made to silence liberal talk is silly. Get facts!