Democrat Accuses Jay Leno of Bias

[BaronVonBigmeat]

How on earth is it unconstitutional for media to have to give equal time?

Please site the Supreme Court case which makes such a ruling.

Well the 10th amendment, for starters.

Of course in practical terms, the constitution means whatever SCOTUS says it means, even if they're lying through their teeth about the original intent of the law or amendment. I suppose shipping off Japanese to internment camps was "constitutional" back in the day.

Personally, I hope that technology keeps advancing to the point where your radio has a cell phone internet connection and can then pick up a nearly infinite number of radio stations, thus making the FCC basically obsolete.

 

[Gunny]

How on earth is it unconstitutional for media to have to give equal time?

Please site the Supreme Court case which makes such a ruling.

This is a joke, right? Your partisan slip is showing.

It's government iterference in free enterprise. simple as that. There is no rule that says any show has to give equal time to political opponents, and such a rule would be absurd, to say the least.

What's next? No media outlet can show any politician in a negative light, while showing the one it prefers in a positive light? A whole bunch of lib outlets would be SCREWED, bigtime.

 

[Avatar4321]

First of all, the Supreme Court has already held the Fairness Doctrine Constitutional. So your persistence in saying it is a Constitutional issue or that government can somehow not require it ... is patently incorrect.

And Self-censorship had nothing to do with the Republican's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine...



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

First, the Supreme Court said their wasnt enough evidence to find it unconstitutional at the time of Red Lion. The only reason they allowed it at all was because of the scarcity argument. Problem is technology has advanced so much that scarcity isnt an issue anymore. Justice White even said the decision could be revisited if there were advancements in technology and evidence of it causing self censorship (and the fact the media exploded in discussion of different issues the second the Fairness Doctrine was repealed is plenty of evidence for self censorhsip).

Second, The FCC already recieved a court ruling that said that they did not have to follow the Fairness Doctrine if they deemed in unconstitutional. That is when the FCC repealed the regulation. And the reason the FCC found it unconstitutional was specifically self censorship and the development of new technology that made Red Lion Broadcasting's reasoning irrelevant. Its spelled out in depth FCC report made during the 80s.

No radio or television show is going to cover controversial issues of public importance if the government is going to force them to provide free time for any lunatic the government decides is "balance" for it.

If you dont think the Fairness Doctrine is a constitutional issue, then i suggest you do a lexis or westlaw search of law review articles and you find nearly 1000 on the Fairness Doctrine and the first amendment.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well the 10th amendment, for starters.

Of course in practical terms, the constitution means whatever SCOTUS says it means, even if they're lying through their teeth about the original intent of the law or amendment. I suppose shipping off Japanese to internment camps was "constitutional" back in the day.

Personally, I hope that technology keeps advancing to the point where your radio has a cell phone internet connection and can then pick up a nearly infinite number of radio stations, thus making the FCC basically obsolete.

Honestly, i think we are way past that point. With Satelitte and internet technology we have a virtually limitless forums to broadcast opinions on.

However, I dont think the FCC can be completely dont away with. The original reason the FCC was organized is because the private sector found it impossible to organize the media forum. There were professional hosts trying to use the same frequencies at the same time. Amatuers interfering with professional. it was a complete mess. So there is still probably going to have to be some time, place, manner restrictions involved.

Unfortunatley if you have to give an inch Congress will take a mile. Congress got into content regulation as well. Hence the Fairness doctrine, which is solely content based regulation. And when challenged the Supreme Court said, alright we'll ignore the first amendment for now.

Luckily we have a system that correct errors like that.

 

[glockmail]

Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006 11:03 p.m. EDT
Democrat Accuses Jay Leno of Bias

.....
U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Los Angeles, argues in a Federal Communications Commission complaint that the NBC program is violating the equal time provision of the Federal Communications Act......

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...636.shtml?s=ic

I know that the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed by Reagan. Is this something new?

 

[Avatar4321]

I know that the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed by Reagan. Is this something new?

No its nothing new. Which is what I was saying. If they are talking about the Part of the communication act I think they are, then this is the statute that inspired the creation of Fairness Doctrine. Basically the FCC created the Fairness Doctrine to enforce this.

 

[glockmail]

No its nothing new. Which is what I was saying. If they are talking about the Part of the communication act I think they are, then this is the statute that inspired the creation of Fairness Doctrine. Basically the FCC created the Fairness Doctrine to enforce this.

So basically they are trying to enforce an FCC regulation that no longer exists?

 

[Hobbit]

I would like one defender of the fairness doctrine to point to me the passage in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power and reponsibility to make speech 'fair.'

And just remember, the McCain-Feingold treason is just the Fairness Doctrine's ugly little brother.