The Fairness Doctrine

[Psychic Octopus]

Horrible Policy. It is Regulating Conservative and Libertarian free Speech On the Radio.

[Nixon in '80]

Idealistically: Flawed
Practically: Horrible

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Horrible Policy of course.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Horrible Policy of course.

[opebo]

There is no way anything other than right-wing views will ever be represented by a media industry controlled by the owning class.

So, yes, the Fairness Doctrine is a good compromise in attempting to at least get some centrist (liberal) views represented.  I wouldn't get my hopes up about it providing good socialist viewpoints however.

[Franzl]

I admit I'd love to see Limbaugh's face if it ever got passed....

Seriously though, it's not unifiable with my definition of freedom of the press, and I'd therefore oppose any attempt to reinstate it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't like the idea of the fairness doctrine and would oppose efforts to re institute it, however it wasn't as bad as people make it out to be and we really do need to do something about media consolidation.

[Keystone Phil]

Absolutely horrific

[MasterJedi]

Horrible Policy

[12th Doctor]

Possibly the most anti-constitutional joke of a policy in the last 60 years.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Horrible Policy of course.

[Nym90]

Mixed. On the one hand, there is no absolute right to broadcast and say whatever you want on publically owned airwaves. People like Limbaugh, Air America, etc. really should be on satellite radio like Howard Stern is, rather than on AM radio.

However, I am also leery that it could end up going too far; it is hard to define legally what "balanced" coverage means. Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try, though.

[Nym90]

It's worth noting that Democrats have done a lot better in Presidential elections overall since it's repeal in 1987 than they did in the 20 years prior to its repeal. Whatever that means.

[Mint]

Horrible, much like the FCC in general.

[Coburn In 2012]

Under the fairness doctorine, Christian radio station owners can be fined for telling the Gospel truth about certain morally depressed groups.  but it would also muzzle conservative secular media too which is already almost extinct because most mainstream media is liberal owned.  Thank god stations still realize Rush is a money maker. 

[A18]

"Fairness" is in the eye of censor.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This is the one thing I approve of that Obama has done so far: coming out and opposing the Congress wanting to reinstate this horrific bill.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't like that just a handful of people control the world's media nor do I like that the media has a right to lie to millions of people, but the Fairness Doctrine is not the right solution and I think any solution to dictate content would be worse than what we have now.

[opebo]

I don't like that just a handful of people control the world's media nor do I like that the media has a right to lie to millions of people, but the Fairness Doctrine is not the right solution and I think any solution to dictate content would be worse than what we have now.

FD doesn't dictate content, just gives equal time to those who the corporations would never publicize.

[Nhoj]

terrible policy i hate corporate media but imposing restrictions on the media is unacceptable.

[SPC]

Mixed. On the one hand, there is no absolute right to broadcast and say whatever you want on publically owned airwaves.

Does that mean there isn't a right to say whatever you want on public property? If so, then that is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

[opebo]

Mixed. On the one hand, there is no absolute right to broadcast and say whatever you want on publically owned airwaves.

Does that mean there isn't a right to say whatever you want on public property? If so, then that is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

No, what is occuring is more like this - someone is leasing the public property and then making sure that only their opinions are heard there.  Of course you can say whatever you like, but the issue is that the rightwing owners are ensuring that others may not say whatever they like on the public property that they control.

[dead0man]

Mixed. On the one hand, there is no absolute right to broadcast and say whatever you want on publically owned airwaves.

Does that mean there isn't a right to say whatever you want on public property? If so, then that is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

No, what is occuring is more like this - someone is leasing the public property and then making sure that only their opinions are heard there.  Of course you can say whatever you like, but the issue is that the rightwing owners are ensuring that others may not say whatever they like on the public property that they control.

That is such a BS argument.  If a lefty could make radio work, they'd be on the radio.  For whatever reason, leftys don't want to get their propaganda while they drive to work and rightys do.  Trying to regulate that into something "fair" sets a horrible precedence that will bite you in the ass one day.

[Nym90]

Mixed. On the one hand, there is no absolute right to broadcast and say whatever you want on publically owned airwaves.

Does that mean there isn't a right to say whatever you want on public property? If so, then that is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

No, what is occuring is more like this - someone is leasing the public property and then making sure that only their opinions are heard there.  Of course you can say whatever you like, but the issue is that the rightwing owners are ensuring that others may not say whatever they like on the public property that they control.

That is such a BS argument.  If a lefty could make radio work, they'd be on the radio.  For whatever reason, leftys don't want to get their propaganda while they drive to work and rightys do.  Trying to regulate that into something "fair" sets a horrible precedence that will bite you in the ass one day.

Well, I'd have no problem with it being broadcast on a privately owned media, such as satellite radio. Was the fact that Howard Stern was not allowed to say whatever he wanted on broadcast radio a violation of the first amendment?

The same thing goes for TV. Networks such as MSNBC and Fox News, which are on cable or satellite only, are a whole different ball game than the broadcast networks for the same reason.

[SPC]

Was the fact that Howard Stern was not allowed to say whatever he wanted on broadcast radio a violation of the first amendment?

Obviously. If saying something on public property is protected by the First Amendment, why wouldn't it protect speech on "public" airwaves?