Author Topic: Has the "Fairness Doctrine" ever been tested in court?  (Read 710 times)

m1911owner

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Has the "Fairness Doctrine" ever been tested in court?
« on: June 26, 2007, 01:21:57 PM »
With Feinstein, Clinton and Boxer talking about wanting to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine", I am wondering if that administrative policy was ever tested in court?  It seems to me that it was a blatant violation of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speach and Freedom of the Press clauses.

When the Doctrine was first promulgated, it wasn't really goring anybody's ox, so I suspect it may have never been tested in court.  If Gleesome Threesome get their way and get a law passed to reinstate the Doctrine, I strongly suspect that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, among others, will have the resources to mount a legal challenge to the law.

What I am wondering is, is there already a Supreme Court precedent holding that the Fairness Doctrine is constitutional, or would a challenge now be breaking new ground?

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Has the "Fairness DOctrine" ever been tested?
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2007, 01:24:52 PM »
I think when the Soviet Union had radios that came on at 8am and turned off at 9pm, that you couldn't shut off, that gave the approved messages from the government all day...

Last implementation I know of.  smiley

kldimond

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
  • Teach Freedom!
    • The Interesting Times Survival Guide
Re: Has the "Fairness DOctrine" ever been tested?
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2007, 10:21:44 AM »
I don't know the answer to your question, but I have some thoughts on the matter...

Current campaign procedures are clearly tilted toward those whose connections with money are most entrenched. This means quid pro quos, even if they can't be proven.

How to fix this is a real chore. I don't think the fairness doctrine they're pushing makes any sense, especially since how they push it will NO DOUBT not force room for other than DemoRepublicrats. It will further entrench the two-part one-party system at the expense of truth and alternatives.

If there is to be a fairness doctrine, I would say that it should be based on election time frames, and enforce that each party's view (Rep, Dem, Lib, Constitution, Green, etc.) be represented equally and at equal or equivalent broadcast times.

I don't see how to do this other than by 1. nationalizing blocks of broadcaster time, or 2. having strictly public funding for campaigns, outlawing private funding, and funding all candidates equally. What to do in the blogosphere is a challenge either way, but make no mistake: if they do this to broadcasters, they'll do it to bloggers. Or at least they'll try.

I think bloggers are much closer to individual utterance than are the broadcasters. So it would be hard for them to push bloggers around, except inasmuch as candidates PAY for their blog "air time." Under those circumstances, some regulation could apply.

The fairness doctrine was in effect from 1940-ish until relatively recently. I would bet that there were challenges, but ... the times were more "willing to cooperate" than these times. Everybody "knew" regulation was a good thing, and tended more to go along to get along. That worked out badly, and so we see more willingness to fight against it.

Point is, even if it was challenged then and was found constitutional, it would and should be challenged--especially if structured as I fear--again today. And it might get more traction.
The problem in America is not the politicians or the bureaucrats. It's the average, everyday person who doesn't know what's already lost, who is focused on his bread and circuses and his mortgage treadmill. Teach this person, and things will improve.

m1911owner

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: Has the "Fairness Doctrine" ever been tested?
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2007, 01:18:45 PM »
Current campaign procedures are clearly tilted toward those whose connections with money are most entrenched. This means quid pro quos, even if they can't be proven.

How to fix this is a real chore.

At the risk of pulling my own thread off-topic...

How to "fix this" was designed into the Constitution.  The buzz-word is "limited government."  Under the Constitution that once was in effect in this country, the federal government has very limited and defined powers, which are spelled out precisely and concisely in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

Quote
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square), as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That is the sum-total of what our federal government is authorized to do.  A fair bit of space for a forum quote, but really an extremely limited list.

How does that apply to your comment about campaign finance, you might ask?  Simply this: Virtually all the quid pro quos have to do with the federal government spending money on things that it is unconstitutional for them to be spending money on in the first place.  Had we not permitted government power to grow into unconstitutional areas, there would not be the corruption problem that now exists.

If we were to follow our Constitution, then there wouldn't be a problem with campaign finance reform, because there would be very little in the way of "benefits" to be bought with campaign contributions.

In the words of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  We have allowed our government to usurp power that it doesn't legally possess, and along with that power has grown a culture of corruption (in both major parties).  The only way to reduce the corruption is to curtail the power.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Has the "Fairness Doctrine" ever been tested?
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2007, 01:22:43 PM »
Very well said m1911owner.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

kldimond

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
  • Teach Freedom!
    • The Interesting Times Survival Guide
Re: Has the "Fairness Doctrine" ever been tested?
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2007, 04:48:32 PM »
If we were to follow our Constitution, then there wouldn't be a problem with campaign finance reform, because there would be very little in the way of "benefits" to be bought with campaign contributions.

Well, there we're in total agreement.
The problem in America is not the politicians or the bureaucrats. It's the average, everyday person who doesn't know what's already lost, who is focused on his bread and circuses and his mortgage treadmill. Teach this person, and things will improve.