The Fairness Doctrine Is Bad News

Below is my column at the Hill about the attempts to reestablish the Fairness Doctrine and to expand it into cable programming.
Here is the column:

Hale responded,”No, I look at the senators and beg for the country.” Many of us have felt exactly the exact identical way, particularly with today’s free-for-all surroundings on Capitol Hill.
The latest cause for a Hale prayer are the demands to revive the equity doctrine, an effort to regulate media that thankfully died in 1987 under the weight of its own absurdity. Adopted in 1949, what became known as the fairness doctrine required television and radio outlets to offer opposing viewpoints on almost any controversy. That is only fair, supporters intoned, and that wouldn’t want fairness?
In fact, the doctrine was far more effective in killing than balancing policy. From the 1980s, press figures complained that the doctrine often led to dropping stories rather than committing the time to broadcast distinct sides. Moreover, a review showed the doctrine was tricky to apply and highly subjective in its program. The largest difficulty was that it comprised direct government regulation of media. The Constitution states there can be no law”abridging the free press,” and a lot of us concur with Justice Hugo Black’s opinion when he stated:”I take’no law abridging’ to mean’no law abridging. ”’
The doctrine was finally, mercifully rescinded in 1987, however, it’s currently back with a vengeance. Many members of Congress are calling for a range of regulations of media and the web, including demands for censorship of”disinformation” on topics which range from election fraud on climate change to sex identification. and Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) , recently wrote cable suppliers to push for content controls over news media and suggested they should prevent audiences from having access to networks such as Fox News. , have referred to such content controls as part of a fresh fairness doctrine.
Such speech and media controls have turned into a primary Democratic talking point. It sometimes appears that, to be progressive, you need to be regressive on topics such as free speech and the free press. Together with the ascension of conservative websites such as Fox, many are demanding a redefinition of their worth to allow increased regulation of speech and press.
Really, restricting such rights has become framed as a democratic virtue. Others are more direct: A column on the liberal site Daily Kos celebrated the conclusion of the late Rush Limbaugh’s radio series however noted fact that”there clearly was a time when he wouldn’t have been able to exist.” (Fortunately for the Daily Kos, it faces no requirements of equivalent time or balance.)
There remain substantial questions within the philosophy’s constitutionality, despite its being upheld in 1969. Additionally, much has changed since the court, in upholding the doctrine, applied a”scarcity principle” to what was back then a considerably smaller media marketplace, including just a couple of broadcast networks. That justification is no more compelling with today’s diversity of media outlets, including cable programming.
What people see as”balance” is highly subjective. Cables networks such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox News are usually attacked for prejudice from opposing sides. Yet, all the networks highlight opposing views. In some cases, this balance is advised. For instance, the Washington Post has featured Jennifer Rubin as its”conservative view author” despite having a lengthy litany of contentious statements against both conservatives and Republicans, for example her proposal that the Republican Party ought to be burned to the ground. Each these outlets, including the cable networks, can assert such balance below the fairness doctrine.
Liberals aren’t the only ones calling to reestablish a fairness doctrine; Republicans have known for a similar doctrine for the web. Has suggested a law to fight rising net censorship by requiring companies to receive Federal Trade Commission certification of the political”neutrality.” That, naturally, is a bit too much”fairness” for others, that denounced the idea for a denial of free speech.
There is an option, which can be true neutrality. The fairness doctrine can be left in the crypt along with other deceased media-control failures. Congress can then give Big Tech businesses a very simple alternative: Return to some neutral systems for communications, or reduce your immunity defense under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Big Tech once engineered itself as the equal of the phone company, and so sought protections as neutral suppliers of communicating forums allowing individuals to voluntarily associate and interact. It then started to take part in expanding, contradictory acts of censorship. Nevertheless, it still wants to remain protected as though it were neutral despite actively modifying content. We would not tolerate a phone company operator cutting into a phone to say the company didn’t approve of an announcement that was just made, or cutting the line if you didn’t voice accepted positions.
That’s the reason why I call myself an”internet originalist.” True neutrality leaves to people to select who they see, watch or converse with in the press. It’s the original fairness doctrine — also it was honest because it was liberated. Otherwise, we can return to letting politicians dictate who can speak and what can be stated. Since Hale might note, nonetheless, we ought to begin with a prayer.
You are able to find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

Like this:Like Loading…