The "Fairness" Doctrine.

[ArcPoint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Read all about it.

What do you guys think of this? The entire concept of the fairness doctrine is to basically force radio broadcasters to present controversial issues equally, as in, both sides of the story. (Notice how the Fairness Doctrine only applies to radio, and not other forms of media, such as television...) The Wikipedia page explains the entire thing much better than I can, but anyway.

Does Congress have the right to pass this bill?

Is this bill Constitutional?

If this bill is justified, should it apply to only radio or all types of media?

In my opinion, no, this goes entirely against the concept of "Free Speech" which gives me, or any other broadcaster in the United States the right to say anything we please, which should NOT be regulated by government. This bill is not Constitutional because it violates the First Amendment.

 

[GwJ]

First of all, I don't know why this is only for the Radio. The news stations on TV are the worst, AKA Fox news. This bill is on the right way, but it's not correct. It needs to apply to the entire media center. Only showing one side of a story is deceiving and leads to people believing in something that is not true, which often happens in politics. The bill should either be scrapped completely or include all media.

 

[ArcPoint]

If this did apply to all media, this sounds like a pain in the butt to enforce. I can't imagine police listening to talk radio, listening to every single news channel just to make sure no one is violating this doctrine... probably not how it would work, but still an interesting thought process.

What's funny is that I agree Fox news is admittedly biased in terms of what they present. But Fox news still gets its ratings somehow.

 

[Vorguen]

You can't say absolutely anything you want in free speech anyway. Obscene language, and other forms of speech that trample on the rights of others is not protected by the First Amendment.

That being said, I do not agree with that bill. However, media broadcasters should still have an ethical duty to try to convey stories in the most factual, truthful, and unbiased manner possible.

 

[ArcPoint]

Yes, you can say anything you want according to free speech. You cannot face jail time for anything you say (although you might obtain some federal suspicion if you threaten the president)

How am I trampling the rights of others by stating an opinion? If you go off of some rant involving 10,000 cuss words, it does not deprive anyone of any rights... it just annoys the crap out of them xD. Name me the rights I can violate by saying something.

 

[Vorguen]

Let me quote my Law book:

"Unprotected Speech: The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that certain types of speech will not be protected under the First Amendment. Speech that violates criminal laws (threatening speech and pornography for example) is not constitutionally protected. Other unprotected speech includes "fighting words" (speech that is likely to incite others to respond violently).
Speech that harms the good reputation of another, or defamatory speech, also is not protected under the First Amendment. To constitute defamation and thus have no First Amendment protection, the speech in question must be an assertion of fact and not merely an opinion. Unlike an opinion, a statement of purported fact can be verified and may require proof in a lawsuit claiming that the statement is defamatory."

Business Law: Text and Cases, Legal, Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment, 11th edition, written by Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, Cross.

The above quote is found in page 88.

Also, there are parts that explain that obscene speech is not protected. on page 89 it quotes:

"The Supreme Court has also held that the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech... material is obscene if (1) the average person finds that it violates contemporary community standards; (2) the work taken as a whole appeals to prurient (arousing and obsessive) interest in sex; (3) the work shows patently offensive sexual conduct; and (4) the work lacks serious redeeming literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit."

I could go on, but I think I made my point. I am not saying everything that isn't decent tramples the rights of others, but there are certain types of speech not protected by the First Amendment. The easiest example is you can't yell bomb in an airport, or fire in a movie theatre.

Why?

Doing so has the potential to cause a riot, or a commotion. This can lead to someone getting severely injured (physically or mentally due to trauma). That is just the "signature" case of not being able to say absolutely everything you want waving your First Amendment rights.

 

[ArcPoint]

I never knew that, thank you for informing me. Regardless, the vast majority of what talk radio (at least in a political sense) does not fall under that category, so it is still protected by Free Speech. But thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Vorguen]

Yeah it is very hard to actually fall under any of the categories I listed. In fact to be honest, even curse words (which can fall under censorship though) are protected because they can be used to express yourself.