Frederic J. Frommer (the original article was removed from the website for some reason, so I'm linking to a cached copy):
Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule requiring broadcasters to air opposing views on issues. . . .
The subtext of the debate over the Fairness Doctrine is talk radio's perceived dominance by conservative voices.
In a telephone interview, Coleman said his motivation was to preserve the First Amendment. But he added: "I do have a strong objection to folks wanting to cut off talk radio because it's conservative. Let the people be able to make the choice."
Thune agreed.
"Having the bureaucrats dictate the content of the airwaves isn't much different from what we are seeing in places like Iran and Russia where they are rolling back freedom of the press," he said.
The "Fairness Doctrine" is a blatant attempt of politicians trying to use the force of law to silence their critics. As I wrote before:
There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. It is merely an attempt of politicians to silence Americans who disagree with them. It is both reprehensible and completely at odds with any notion of free speech.
Glenn Reynolds agrees:
Nice to see such a robust commitment to robust discourse. As noted earlier: "This is all thinly-disguised posturing for what's really bothering the senators: They don't like that people are allowed to criticize them on public airwaves."
Fortunately, the President has said he will veto any attempt to have it reinstated.
1 comment:
It's true that it's fortunate we have a president who would veto any such legislation.
But what happens when a new president is sworn in Jan of 2009?
Would a president Hillary veto such a bill? If you think she would, I have a bridge to sell you. In fact, of all people, the Clintons are the ones who most want to shut up people like Rush Limbaugh.
Let's also not forget that the President can do a whole lot without Congress passing a bill. The president controls the FCC, which can make rules and regulations by its own fiat. Now granted, they can be challenged in court, but that's a long and tedious process. So would a president Hillary be in any way reluctant to use her powers to silence voices like Rush Limbaugh? I have a hard time imagining that she would hold back at all.
The point is that the way to prevent this is to be active at the ballot box in the next election. Just because this idea is going nowhere now doesn't mean it won't later, if the wrong people get into power, and that is sadly looking very likely.
Post a Comment