FCC commissioner: Dems might try to extend the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet
posted at 12:50 pm on August 13, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
It’s Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee, making a fine GOTV pitch for November but not making much sense to me, at least, on the merits. This subject has come up before so I’ll repeat the question I asked last year: Why, given their advantage online, would liberals ever want to subject the ‘Net to a Fairness principle? If it’s true that the country is trending left, and shifts in party identification seem to point that way, equal time for underrepresented viewpoints is the last thing a Democratic government should be pushing (unless of course they’re only targeting talk radio). Rasmussen actually polled this issue last summer and found the number willing to Fair-ify the ‘Net alarmingly high — 34 percent, compared to 50 percent who prefer laissez faire. There’s no breakdown by party, but given that a clear majority of liberals supported Fairness generally while a near majority of conservatives opposed it, it’s safe to say that 34 percent is comprised mainly of lefties who are either willing to sacrifice their own political advantage to the cause of “equal time” or too stupid to realize that Fairness isn’t necessarily a synonym for “more exposure for liberals.” We’ll have to wonder.
Exit question borrowed from another earlier post: If the Dems do surf a huge blue wave to victory in November, is there any dumber legislative move they could make — short of trying to pass amnesty, of course — to energize the conservative base they’d just crushed? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
net neutrality is all about government intervention online.
I doubt my liberals would be happy about it, either. I wouldn’t just line of cons here.
lorien1973 on August 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM
One more reason I’m pretty sure Obama will only last one term. His party will go waaay too far in pushing the country far left. It’s not like convservatism is dead. It’s just in a state of disorder.
BadgerHawk on August 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM
This idea is so stupid, it is beyond anything even remotely resembling logic, much less common sense.
You know, this whole Fairness Doctrine thing should be decided by We The People, not They The Dunderheads in Congress. Put this thing on the ballot and let us decide the matter once and for all.
pilamaye on August 13, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Lefties always move to quell free speech when they get the power to do it. The tendency is instinctive and is believed to originate in their Stalin gene.
Cicero43 on August 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM
One term. One long-ass term.
Obama, with free-speech destroyed and no opposition that would ever make it to the ears of the American people, accompanied by a majority in Congress will be Emperor of the USKKK of A. for life.
cntrlfrk on August 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Forget the internet, they’re going to try and apply the fairness doctrine to private conversations. Just wait and see. It didn’t take long until the smoking bans started to reach into private households (a friend’s condo has just sent around letters discussing the possible change to a smoke free building (in private condos!)).
This is going to be very ugly.
progressoverpeace on August 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Obama wins, George Clooney will be in charge of the FCC.
Entelechy on August 13, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I didn’t say it was going to be a fun term.
BadgerHawk on August 13, 2008 at 12:59 PM
it’s not possible. And we would no longer be a free country if we couldn’t say what we thought – regardless of how the officials get selected.
ThackerAgency on August 13, 2008 at 12:59 PM
The freedom of speech is a dangerous thing to the Democratic party.
Hening on August 13, 2008 at 1:00 PM
They only see the AM radio genie that was released from the bottle, but they are shortsighted about the genie on the net.
Kini on August 13, 2008 at 1:00 PM
You’ll have to pry my keyboard from my cold unplugged computer!
- The Cat
MirCat on August 13, 2008 at 1:01 PM
.
Allah, it all depends on what is ‘fair’ – if Daily Kos is judged to be in the political center, they will have no problem restricting deviations from that objective standard. Recall Stalin – “It does not matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes”.
Think_b4_speaking on August 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Interesting to me people are talking Radio…
And Internet…
But not TV… where we have the MOST biased coverage. But of course, its biased towards the dems…
Romeo13 on August 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM
QFT
MirCat on August 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM
That’s because Leftist & Democrats (sorry, an oxymoron); are delusional, and they actually BELIEVE that: ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, LAT, WaPost, CNN, AJC, etc., are “Right-leaning”; as well of course, as is their favorite bogeyman: “Talk Radio” and now the “Rightwing Blogosphere”!
Despite the fact all statistics show that Anti-American sites such as the Daily Kos-omac get WAY more “hits” or “visits” than any comparable “Rightwing” sites.
I’ve actually had this argument with the Leftists I work with, and they’re delusional; they’ll sit there an just flat out insist that “CNN & CBS”, etc, are Rightwing Attack Machines….
So, that is why….
Dale in Atlanta on August 13, 2008 at 1:06 PM
The internet is as fair as it can get. Don’t like somebody’s blog? Start your own.
forest on August 13, 2008 at 1:07 PM
I read that an assault weapons ban is in the new Dem party platform.
That worked out so well for them in the 90’s.
juliesa on August 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Borders and “mileage standards.” I guess those are equal, at least.
What’s that great Frost quote? A liberal is a guy too open minded to take his own side in an argument. Proof!
emailnuevo on August 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM
It seems far fetched to me, but I will be watching it closely with y’all.
Ordinary1 on August 13, 2008 at 1:13 PM
I think such a move would be a good thing. It would set precedent for equalizing by legislation many other disparities in society. Just think, we would no longer have to wrestle with disconcerting concepts such as:
1. Coke or Pepsi
2. Ford or Chevrolet
3. Paper or plastic
4. Conservative or liberal TV/radio/internet
All would be equal, and therefore not arguable. I’m tellin’ ya, these New Libs are just genius!
BobMbx on August 13, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Sounds like China’s approach to the Internet.
saved on August 13, 2008 at 1:14 PM
There would be no worry for liberals because it wouldn’t allow conservative viewpoints to be expressed if they are the minority.
The Dems’ version of fairness is not equal time for both sides, but all of ther propoganda and none from their opposition.
Maybe the Orwellian outcome wouldn’t be as simple to create as I fear it, but there is no doubt that the intention is there.
Grafted on August 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM
If Obama is elected with a majority of the House and Senate, the First and Second Amendments are history. The Fairness Doctrine and not allowing secret ballots in union electios are just the start.
volsense on August 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Allah,
You have to remember how the fairness doctrine worked.
It only applied to “controversial” issues. If somebody went on the air and declared Fords superior to Chevy’s, (or the other way around), the fairness doctrine did not kick in.
The courts have a way of deciding that whatever the govt position is, is by definition, not controversial, so there would be no requirement to host the opposing view. On the other hand, someone disagreeing with the govt point of view is by definition, controversial.
MarkTheGreat on August 13, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Allah, you assume though that a liberal administration would see to the fair enforcement of a net-extended fairness doctrine.
Vatican Watcher on August 13, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Depends on how big a majority they get.
Mike H on August 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM
“Why, given their advantage online, would liberals ever want to subject the ‘Net to a Fairness principle?”
Because they’ll get to decide the two sides.
The left wing view will be “balanced” by the far left view.
There won’t be a conservative view. It won’t be necessary.
NoDonkey on August 13, 2008 at 1:21 PM
They would want this for the net because to them places like Redstate.com, Hotair, Andrew B’s Site and the like are all hardcore Republican smear sites.
On the otherhand Kos, Moveon and Huffpoo are sites that give both sides and therefore don’t need to be policed by their new Netraids.
Rbastid on August 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Well, goodbye everyone. It’s been fun here at HotAir.
/sarc
Can you imagine the lefty trolls they would have to let in for a balanced view? Scratch that. Never mind.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Describes Russia, China, Venezuela and Cuba to perfection.
Entelechy on August 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM
You’re not too familiar with the powers of Congress are you?
The Race Card on August 13, 2008 at 1:25 PM
This has been my guiding point on the issue.
–RR
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 13, 2008 at 1:26 PM
So will Katie Koran, Pissy Chrissy Matthews, Olberdouche, Brian “Crooked Face” Williams, et. al. have to step aside for half of their shows to let Sean Hannity, Rush, Neal Boortz, et. al. report their side of the news?
The line between journalism and commentary/activism has been blurred over the years.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 13, 2008 at 1:29 PM
A chill wind blows.
JammieWearingFool on August 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I would hope that those sworn to the following would take care of whomever is in office/congress that tries to take away any of our bill of rights. Allegiance to POTUS falls after allegiance and defending the Constitution.
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
rgranger on August 13, 2008 at 1:45 PM
If Barry and the Rats are stupid enough to try something like this, he’d better be prepared to ask his new-found friends, the Russians, to send him some ‘peacekeeping troops’ to help suppress armed dissent amongst the masses.
GeneSmith on August 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM
They’d write the rules in such a way as to guarantee unfettered voice for someone like Soros, and no voice for someone like Malkin, whatever it would take to do this, that’s how the legislation will be written.
Lawyers are like gods, they can make this thing do whatever they want it to do.
jeff_from_mpls on August 13, 2008 at 1:49 PM
As I think about it, it was Herself who was even more strongly inclined to suppress any dissentinng views in any media.
GeneSmith on August 13, 2008 at 1:49 PM
This is tin foil hat territory, akin to the email we each get monthly about the FCC being ready to ban Christian radio. Stoooopid.
Akzed on August 13, 2008 at 1:52 PM
A good strategic move. They propose “fairness” in TV, radio and web and then “compromise” on talk radio only. Then they brag about how fair and giving they are.
snaggletoothie on August 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Huh. Idiots. They have no idea how difficult it would be to regulate the internet in its current form. It’s like some kind of…international network or something.
China manages it for the most part, but they’re essentially running their own parallel internet.
S. Weasel on August 13, 2008 at 1:58 PM
SatanPundit says: What if you have a vanity website, myname.com ; do you have to then buy and advertise yourname.com? Do you have to wear a hairshirt and flagellate yourself half the time to make up for yourname.com? Let’s go, I’m into it.
Paul-Cincy on August 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM
That should hold true for abortion and the death penalty as well. State by state.
Paul-Cincy on August 13, 2008 at 2:05 PM
“Satellite internet”, anyone?
Spanglemaker on August 13, 2008 at 2:13 PM
The dims will try to control all dissent from the forms of media they cannot control. The mainstream media will not be effected
volsense on August 13, 2008 at 2:24 PM
There is nothing wrong with your computer. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. Sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your computer. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to… The Obonzo Limits.
franksalterego on August 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I’m sure the Dim’s will take a leaf from the Chinese on how to control the internet. After all, aren’t the major internet players all liberals? And if there is a “Blue Wave” in November, the re-education camps will be opening in December.
GarandFan on August 13, 2008 at 2:37 PM
And Google and Yahoo will be right there, hats in hands, asking what to do to help.
Akzed on August 13, 2008 at 2:41 PM
But don’t take this too seriously.
Akzed on August 13, 2008 at 2:42 PM
It’s not enough.
Quashing the opposition is the point- near-total shutdown, all in the interest of fairness.
drjohn on August 13, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Thank god we finally got DSL in the country, because I had that Hughes Satellite crap and it was absolutely horrible and expensive.
Radio Free America is where we’re headed, I’m afraid. But they’ll have to deal with a massive throng going to Washington with pitchforks and torches. The government doesn’t fear the people, and that is a bad thing that leads to tyranny. This might finally be the straw that helps mobilize the snoozing public and help them inject a little bit of that fear.
pistolero on August 13, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Because “fairness” in this context is simply Newspeak for “suppression of conservative speech.” It doesn’t matter what the balance of opinion actually happens to be, only the desired political outcome. As such leftist propaganda, no matter how prolific, will be characterized as “objective,” “accurate,” or “news,” and hence exempt from standards of “fairness.” Meanwhile, any and all conservative perspectives will be labeled as “opinion” (almost certainly “extreme,” no less) and counted as “unbalanced.”
The objective of the fairness doctrine is not to give left-wing commentary “equal time.” The objective is to coerce conservative commentary–and ultimately conservative thinking itself–out of existence.
Blacklake on August 13, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Just like “Dave” in “2001: Space Odyssey”, it has all become quite clear to me:
First, you enact “Fairness” doctrine legislation.
Next, you provide a definition of what “fair” and “unfair” is. This definition will will resemble something like this:
UNFAIR: Any criticism of a liberal initiative, thought, statement or activity.
FAIR: Anything not UNFAIR.
BobMbx on August 13, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Eway ouldcay alwaysyay useyay igpay atinlay. Emocratsday on’tday eakspay oreignfay anguageslay.
Qzsusy on August 13, 2008 at 4:57 PM
This is the most idiotic idea they’ve ever come up with.
And now, in the interest of fairness…no, it’s not.
(Gee, that was informative, wasn’t it?)
James on August 13, 2008 at 4:57 PM
I’m sorry; I didn’t realize that I had wondered into China and become lost. Can anyone direct me back to the USA: Land of the Free?
Hunt035 on August 13, 2008 at 5:17 PM
The issue here is not if the fairness doctrine fairly applied is palatable. This issue is that fairness is only as fair as the prevailing courts. I have seen the courts complicit in egregious injustices perpetrated by the government when a slim majority of the people didn’t care.
The fairness doctrine in its present evolution is not only unconstitutional but very bad government.
flicker on August 13, 2008 at 5:31 PM
In the name of “fairness”, of course the left will eagerly give up their hegemony in these areas:
- “Public” radio (e.g. NPR)
- Broadcast/cable TV News/Journalism
- Print newspapers and magazines
- Educational institutions (primary, secondary, college)
Yea, in our dreams.
electric-rascal on August 14, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Has anyone thought about what this could mean for Blog Talk Radio?
They could very well use BTR as the foot in the door for eventual censhorship of conservative/libertarian blogs and websites.
ericdondero on August 14, 2008 at 6:59 AM
Why just Liberal/Conservative for “Fairness”?
Where would that leave us libertarians?? And how would they distinguish between a conservative or a libertarian?
What if Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or especially Glen Beck all of a sudden claimed, “Hey, I’m not just a conservative, I’m a libertarian, as well.”
Well, there’s your balance.
ericdondero on August 14, 2008 at 7:01 AM
Really?
Ok, so do I vote Dem and get the Fairness Doctrine applied to the Internet…
Or do I vote Repub and support a candidate who in 2006 sued to get CFR applied to all internet communications?
2008, Vote however you like, we’re ****ed either way.
gekkobear on August 14, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Comment pages: