Schumer on the Fairness Doctrine: Just think of it as regulating pornography
posted at 11:56 am on November 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He’s making a general point about government’s responsibility to oversee the public airwaves. If you’re willing to concede that they have the power and duty to keep one type of material off the air in the interest of the common good, then at least theoretically you’re willing to extend that principle to other types — like, say, political speech, to ensure “balance.”
This clip’s an even better turnout motivator than the Ayers clip, isn’t it?
At least he’s only talking only about the public airwaves, not cable or the Internet. I think.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Please don’t, since you’re missing the point by about 500 miles.
Kim Hartveld on November 4, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Where have you been? We have lots of new meat for you to eat.
carbon_footprint on November 4, 2008 at 12:22 PM
O/T
Happy voting day everyone make sure you get out and vote! I did it felt great to vote against Rockefeller for S.hehe
I’m sure it won’t get him out but it really did feel good.
tee866 on November 4, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Heh.
We should be so lucky.
Dems would never win office in this country again if they tried that.
ClintACK on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
The government can never squelch free speech, no matter how hard it tries. The opposition always finds a way.
jagdpanther on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Note to ALLAHPUNDIT:
AP,thank-you for the above and beyond the call of duty
in keeping Hot Air Politicaly Enlightened and ten steps
ahead of the MSM!
Thanks for your tireless* work on this election!
*(canopfor realizes this looks like brown nosing,
but AP deserves it!!)
canopfor on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Late to thread. Very nice.
BuckeyeSam on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I had a stack of docs on my desk yesterday morning as tall as my leg. I was swamped.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
By the way, I should also emphasize that the same rules apply to your front yard. It’s your private property, but it broadcasts to the public in your area. The Feds can nail you for jerking off in a lawn chair, but they can’t nail you for pontificating in it.
No, look it up. It wasn’t a synonym.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Facism won’t come to America in a roar of violence; it will come in a silent acquiescence of the unknowing allowing the unthinkable.
There is NO “fairness” in the “Fairness Doctrine.” It won’t stop at the public airwaves once it is allowed to be re-instated.
coldwarrior on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
“thespottedowl on November 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM”
first of all, 12 is an EVEN number …
second of all, the amendment process is not overnite …
/three lil’ letters — e.r.a.
[!!]
Buckaroo on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
That should be an easy answer for anyone here.
Esthier on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Plus the ConCon!!! I think I will run to be a delegate if we can get it passed.
HawaiiLwyr on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I don’t know? After that comment made to Cavuto…one has to wonder if they won’t try to extend this “fairness” to the cable channels, internet, newspapers, magazines.
capejasmine on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Somebody post senator shithead’s email address and phone number…then let’s bury his phones and email…
areseaoh on November 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
The major networks have ALWAYS done this better. Witness George Will. What demographic does he represent exactly? The bow-tied Ivy League sector? He’s the token. He’s the face of all conservatism. Why George Will? Because his appeal is SO narrow that he does not threaten the gang of liberals on the network and he allows them to claim that they have fulfilled the requirement to present the other side. The networks will not have to change a thing under a revived Fairness Doctrine. They simply have to continue what they have done for years. Gather a group of Democrats, let them talk for 45 minutes and plop ONE conservative in the middle for a few minutes (the more feckless the better) and voila, instant fairness.
Leonard210 on November 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I cant stand that slimeball. I actually saw him in the
fleshscales at aHolidayChristmas parade a coupla years back. Believe me he is waay more disturbing in person. He is on the short list of jerks I want to toss out, fairness doctrine my arse.NY Conservative on November 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I did all I can today to combat this ilk running this country.
Hening on November 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Kim, maybe my point is not like yours.
upinak on November 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Do not worry Allah – you are safe. Ed -not so much.
Fuquay Steve on November 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
And another page revealed from the Democrat Manifesto.
sherry on November 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
It makes me feel the same way, but given the choice, would you really rather outlaw political speech? The minute that occurs, trust me, your children will be far more threatened.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
How about Chuckie Schumer porn?
“Oh yeah… give me your money… that’s riiiight.”
Enoxo on November 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
It doesn’t help that many Liberals don’t see themselves as the left, they see themselves as the center.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Let me get this straight…. Regulating pornography is comparable to regulating(essentially attempting to squash) conservative talk radio…. WHAT!?!?
drewwerd on November 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM
“HawaiiLwyr on November 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM”
i would totally vote for you for delegate if i could …
sadly, i peg that issue as the least likely of every single item on the ballot to pass — but if turnout is higher than expected, we could be in for a VERY pleasant surprise …
Buckaroo on November 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Oh Gosh! What kind of choice is that? Would you make one choice watching old Richard Simmons exercise shows?
hawkdriver on November 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Such is the price of surrendering anonymity in exchange for authenticity. Putting a real name, not a pseudonym, behind your reporting makes it more “real”, but the risks…
Good luck Ed, Michelle…
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Schumer is destined for a prominent role in The Reichstag.
fogw on November 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Enoxo. STOP. TRYING TO EAT LUNCH. ;)
hippie_chucker on November 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Like ALL libtard programs it will fail. With a majority in Congress what will be their reaction? Reach deeper, like they always do. If the first ‘fairness’ didn’t work it wasn’t because it was a bad law, it was because such-n-such is bad. They then push ‘fairness’ on such-n-such. Yada yada yada.
Same crap, different day for the lib-i-ots. It won’t stop until they are stopped.
Limerick on November 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
In all fairness I would like to now hear now from say? Fred Thompson?
MooseStew on November 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Personally, I would make it very clear to assclowns like Schmucky Schumer and the rest of his Democrat ilk that I totally oppose any attempts on their part to regulate speech on the airwaves. I have the right to hear whatever I want when I want. I personally would like to see this stupid Fairness Doctrine thing challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
pilamaye on November 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Here ya go, areseaoh.
Senator Schumer
Washington, DC
313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-6542
Fax: 202-228-3027
TDD: 202-224-0420
email form: http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm
BacaDog on November 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Heh. Just imagine his lisp.
“Uuuuhhh, yeah. President Obama gives all the milkshakes to the senate… the looooanns we get, and money.”
Enoxo on November 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
The very notion of “public airwaves” is just plain wrong. The propagation of electromagnetic waves at “radio frequencies” to a radio or TV is no more a “public” resource than waves at visible wavelengths transmitting the pictures on a TV, computer screen, or newspaper to the eye of a viewer/reader.
The only difference between the print media and the electronic variety is the technology used to communicate the ideas. The only justification for controlling the broadcast media is the ease with which children can recieve their transmissions, without parental consent. Signals that are broadcast in unencrypted form may be properly regulated to avoid transmission of outright obscenity, but when transmitted encrypted, or over cable or Internet, so that parents can effectively control access by their young impressionable children, should only be regulated with regards technical matters (avoiding interference with other broadcasters’ signals).
If there is a “right to privacy” in the emnations of the penumbrae of enumerated rights (with which I happen to agree), then the freedom of the press likewise extends to broadcast TV and radio, as well as the encrypted satellite services, and our blessed Internet. The strictest constructions of the First Amendment have limited it to freedom of political speech.
The Monster on November 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I’ve got nothing clever to respond with, but the way you wrote this, almost with a tone as though you’re concerned I might actually pleasure myself on my own front lawn and find myself in jail, really amused me, today of all days that’s a necessity.
Oh, and I’d like to add that even your own backyard can be subject to those same laws as one, table-loving man found out the hard way, basically, anywhere you can reasonably be expected to be seen by the public.
Esthier on November 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
For Up-Chuck Schumer, this makes perfect sense–conservatives and pornography are both dirty.
Of course, his state’s former Governor didn’t regulate himself on pornography, although he tried to regulate others.
Steve Z on November 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Sorry, but to equate political speech with pornography is just poor rhetorical ethics that I’m surprised to find you condoning. I guess Ossetia and Russia should both exercize restraint.
At any rate, “fairness” should only be invoked when granting licenses, not when those licences are used. Libs as well as Americans should have access to the airwaves, and the political content they generate is none of the govt’s beeswax.
Akzed on November 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I will give you that.
upinak on November 4, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Mr. Schumer is a reminder of what humanity acts like when it rejects God’s offer of mercy.
This is why the Judeo-Christian life is important to retain in society. It is literally a civilizing force. As religion has declined, we’ve seen even our leaders decay into little more than animals.
jeff_from_mpls on November 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Since the most dangerous place in the world is the space between a camera and Chuckie – I find it the height of hypocrisy that he would want to restrict someone else’s access.
ok, the rain has stopped, I am going to go vote – be back later! Keep the faith, we will be celebrating!
HawaiiLwyr on November 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
What? So he just let Schmucker get away with equating Political speech with Porn?
ronsfi on November 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
The New Black Panthers? Cool! They use to be led by somebody who called himself Commandante Taco.
Blake on November 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
…well, that thought just ensured 15 minutes I’ll have to set aside tonight.
MadisonConservative on November 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
What? So he just let Schmucker get away with equating Conservative Political speech with Porn?
ronsfi on November 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
coldwarrior on November 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM
And the violence begins.
ronsfi on November 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
This is scary stuff. I’ve been studying this in a Media Law class recently, and the FCC decided to abandon the Fairness Doctrine in the ’80s, saying that ultimately it was unconstitutional, discouraged its policy goal of allowing a mutliplicity of voices in the market (stations were only broadcasting orthodox, uncontroversial views to avoid Fairness Doctrine complaints), and Democrats had been using Fairness Doctrine complaints to disrupt the political speech of right-wing radio personalities. So, on the FCC’s books, the Fairness Doctrine is dead, but that could change with a Democratic FCC chairman (or Congressional legislation).
On the other hand, the Fairness Doctrine is still constitutional according to the Supreme Court. The last time it reviewed any case having to deal with the fairness doctrine was in the ’50s with Red Lion v. FCC. That case ruled it constitutional (before the FCC found the evidence that it used in the ’80s to get rid of it), and no other cases have come up about it.
Things do not look good, as most likely all the left-leaning justices on the Court will retire as soon as possible if Obama’s elected, letting him push his “fair” judges who believe in “social justice” into the Court. With a 3-2 Democrat majority in FCC commissioners as well, this really could mean the death of talk radio very soon.
CarpeFishem on November 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Is this my friend the coldwarrior in CA?
upinak on November 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Distinction without a difference, I’d say.
Mr. D on November 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I hope that’s not true. Back in the days of law and order, a President would call Federal Marshals in.
jeff_from_mpls on November 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I wonder if Chucky was one of the many hysterical liberals who were outraged by the false rumor that Palin wanted to ban books at the children’s library.
Buy Danish on November 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Finally!! There will finally be a conservative voice and point of view on NPR!!!
What?…Huh?…..That’s not what he meant….?
ej_pez on November 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Hey…I think I saw him last night at the local Pancho Villas.
sdd on November 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Is this my friend the coldwarrior in CA?
upinak on November 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Well, yes indeed…but in OH not CA. Been a long long time since I lived out there.
coldwarrior on November 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR. 2905)
http://www.mrcaction.org/512/petition.asp?pid=16837381
Unmasking the Myths Behind the Fairness Doctrine
http://www.cultureandmedia.com/specialreports/2008/Fairness_Doctrine/FairnessDoctrine_ExecSum.htm
Crystald on November 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
good luck with that, I contacted them over the summer over the oil/drill deal and guess what, no response. His office did send me a canned email….about 6 weeks later.
NY Conservative on November 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Does the Fairness Doctrine apply to NPR?
fleiter on November 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Does the Fairness Doctrine apply to NPR?
fleiter on November 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Nothing applies to NPR.
coldwarrior on November 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Actually, I saw some communists on one of the democrat hate sites talking about Obama’s thugs forming a voting-day “security force.” They were saying the volunteers had to leave their e-mail addresses and that they would be contacted with instructions; the thugs didn’t want to make their plans public.
I blew it off at the time but apparently it’s true.
A foreshadow to the Civilian National Security Force.
jeff_from_mpls on November 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM
LOL sorry cold. My friend who also goes by the same name has been wanting to get on HA for EVER! I sent him an email that the registration was open. Found him online only a few weeks ago and was happy to see him. I thought I would chance it and see if it was him… but hey I like ya too!
upinak on November 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Silly, NPR is already “fair and balanced.” Wink.
terryannonline on November 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Not to nitpick, but the Left has nothing to do with Liberty aside from lying about who they really are.
Consider:
Those people want to tell how much of your money you can keep.
They want to tell you and your children what to think.
They want to tell if and what you can drive
They want to tell you where you can live
They want to tell you what you can eat
They want to tell you what you can say
Does that sound like anything akin to Liberty?
I Don’t think so.
kelly Tejera on November 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
So what constitutes a Liberal or Conservative voice?
FONDA or LIBERMAN?
TANCREDO or BROOKS?
Limerick on November 4, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Hey Chuck, keep your money grubbing hands off my online porn!
godhelpus on November 4, 2008 at 12:44 PM
What an arrogant creep!
The day we all wait in line to buy that one brand of toilet paper that Schumer and his cronies have decided is worthy of being produced is just around the corner.
GuitarPlayer52 on November 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM
It is true. I just watched it on a Fox live video.
Apparently, there were two. One is an “official” poll watcher, and the other was just a badass standing by the door popping a nightstick against his hand.
A Republican poll watcher called the cops, and they made nightstick boy leave.
BacaDog on November 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Jonah is a must read.
If Conservatism = Porn, then Schumer = Moron.
pt on November 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Here’s a copy of the letter I emailed to Schumer
RE: The Fairness Doctrine
I am appalled that you are equating talk radio(political speech) with pornography. Is your ideological foundation so weak that it can’t withstand oppositional ideation? Do you think that people are too stupid to make up their own minds without some sort of intervention by government? If you silence the opposition, as is the Fairness Doctrine’s likely result, then you will be spearheading a new tyranny. Is this what you really want for your country? Consider that once the legal mechanism is in place to silence one voice then it follows that your voice may next be silenced.
jakabok_botch on November 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Also linked on Drudge now.
BacaDog on November 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
“Fairness” would be shutting Chuck “Where’s the Camera” Schumer up.
Who keeps re-electing this stain?
HornetSting on November 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
“Regulating Pornography” would require caging this maggot in a dark room.
Jaibones on November 4, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Isn’t this sort of like saying that if you can’t teach religion in school then you can’t teach geography?
Mr A on November 4, 2008 at 12:50 PM
How long until our Michelle is an extremist? Then you?
We are not supposed to get angry, just wise and logical?
No line in the sand, just a fuzzy notion of reason and discussion?
It’s probably a good thing the boss is going to lock me in at 2pm because I’d probably be your local Film-at-11 if he didn’t.
Limerick on November 4, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Schumer lacks both basic decency and a functioning brain. He’s a perfect Democrat Senator.
Jaibones on November 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Must-reading for Senator Chuckie, Slow Joe, and others of their ilk:
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
They see themselves as ‘THE’ solution, whereas in actuality they are all just a part of a big problem.
Wally on November 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM
We have Joe the Plumber. They have Chuck the Schmuck.
Count me in on the march. All should consider focusing on organizing one BIG event that will get a HUGE turnout in the mall. Back in 2003, I was at a Rally for America that drew 25,000 people, thanks to Glenn Beck, and not even CNN (for whom Mr. Beck did not then work) could ignore us.
BTW – I am glad Mr. Beck is leaving CNN for Fox News. Hopefully he can really be unleashed now.
If the talk radio hosts unite on this and call upon all their listeners to march in one place at one time, the combined result would make the Million Man March look like a Cub Scout outing. Even if the MSM were to totally ignore such an event, the officials in D.C. would certainly wake up and take notice. And we can take videocams with us to do our own coverage of the event for You-Tube postings.
Viva La Reagan Revolucion.
OneVision on November 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Chuck-You, Schumer.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Buckaroo –
Yes, your point about the number is taken (talons, and all). So make it 11, 13 or 15.
My point remains – the number of supreme court justices are not set by the consitution, it is a function of the legislature.
That makes this bird tremble more than anything.
thespottedowl on November 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Yea, same from me. If all we had was the msm to get our news from just think of all the things we would have never heard about. Thanks!
scalleywag on November 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Anyone know what Limerick is talking about?
Jaibones on November 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM
It’s like porn, except the 1st amendment expressly covers political speech, whereas it doesn’t mention lap dances or stripper polls, interestingly enough.
Where did this idiot Schumer get his law degree, University of ACORN?
NoDonkey on November 4, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I wish that Chucky Schmucky Shumer would just shut his cake hole.
worlok on November 4, 2008 at 1:02 PM
This guy is going to make me buy my first weapon.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on November 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Not me. It’s too easy for “them” to write him off if he’s on the “evil” FOX. It was cool being able to point to a guy like him on CNN.
worlok on November 4, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Oh B.S. Life is only “fair” when it’s going your way. This is a democrat congress pitching a fit, screaming “it’s not fair”.
The FCC keeping an affront to common decency off mainstream TV and Congress regulating Free Speech are 2 totally different things. This is an apples and oranges comparison.
You can’t go butt naked through traffic, but soap box speeches are ONLY allowed on sidewalks. Is the fairness doctrine going to regulate that too? Do I have to find a liberal to talk to my friend after I do, or face a penalty for one sided conversation?
Are they going to regulate Youtube too? Are they gonna close down Ace because HA and MM.com are the only allowed opposites of Kos and Huff?
George Orwell must be spinning like an F-16 jet turbine in his grave.
Bo on November 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM
No, he’ll just get the audience numbers that he deserves. CNN sucks and their numbers are abysmal.
HornetSting on November 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Schmucky is another life-long pol like Joe Biden who has never had a real job.
Term limits, but first, he needs to be b*tch-slapped.
What an anti-American punk.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on November 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Schumer is a moron, will always be a moron, new yorkers are morons. They elected both clinton and this moron…
NRA Lifer on November 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Wake up everyone they will place the cable news programs under the FCC. FOX News will get a massive awakening after January 21. The Dims wants FOX News and talk radio shut down.
Jdripper on November 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Is there any conservative’s point of view on this? The dems NAZI fairness doctrine needs to be crushed! And we need to start fighting the MARXIST dems in the congress and calling them out on what this NAZI regulation is!
Let’s also include news print and local TV news! And national news!
We need to start fighting folks! The attitude of staying out of the gutter to fight, is making us look weak! We need some true conservatives to take the fight to them!
time2taketheglovesoffGOP on November 4, 2008 at 1:15 PM
If the arrogant, obnoxious Chucky Schumer really believed in the Fairness Doctrine, he would cut down on his own tv interviews.
The fact that he can’t tell the difference between porn and intellectual discourse says a lot about him.
Reread the First Amendment, Chucky. Maybe if your friends didn’t suppress free speech in other areas, radio talk shows wouldn’t be so popular.
SpiritofUSA on November 4, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Oh, I’m sure Schumer will only regulate radio.
Then he’ll only regulate cable networks.
Then he’ll only regulate the internet.
Then he’ll only regulate newspapers.
Then he’ll only regulate network TV.
And at each step, the remaining “free press” will allow that the regulation is necessary.
hawksruleva on November 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
A full 15? I take that as a complement.
Esthier on November 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
One small difference. Porn stars get paid to be screwed, whereas we pay for it.
Esthier on November 4, 2008 at 1:20 PM
“This guy is going to make me buy my first weapon.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on November 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM”
Already bought mine in anticipation of the Christmas Rush. The Gun Counter people at Quantico Marine base told me they’d been very busy lately.
I picked up a .45 caliber Glock 21, holds 13 surprisingly heavy bullets. Got it all lubricated with gun oil last night, it’s ready to go.
Never really wanted to own a gun. It’s not a hobby now or some little indulgence, it’s a necessity that is if clown act Obama gets in with a fillibuster proof Dem majority in the Senate.
NoDonkey on November 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »