Democrat-controlled Congress will “restore” the Constitution…right?
Posted on January 18, 2007
Wrong. As if this is a surprise.
Not only is Senate Bill 1, a provision of which is a direct assault on the First Amendment rights of anyone who, well, has an opinion that a couple hundred people might hear, on the table, now we have this:
Kucinich: Congress To Take On FCC
Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.
The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding “hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.†The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.
In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the “Fairness Doctrine,” which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.
Kucinich said in his speech that “We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda” and added “we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible.”
There he is, vegetable oil boy flapping naked in the breeze.
“we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible.” In other words, now that we have power, we will work to silence all opposing views. Thanks for being so honest Menace.
So where might the ACLU stand on the “Fairness Doctrine?” Seems as though they’d oppose such blatant federal government interference with the free exchange of ideas. Ummmm…no.
…the 1987 elimination of the Fairness Doctrine sparked a maelstrom of protest from groups as diverse as the ACLU, Mobil Oil, and the NAACP, as well as conservative commentator Pat Buchanan.
Nadine Strossen confirms the standing ACLU position:, but has something encouraging to add:
Reason: What is the ACLU’s position on the idea of extending the Fairness Doctrine to all media, including print? Should people be ensured of venues in which to express their views?
Strossen: We have historically supported the Fairness Doctrine, although I’ve dissented from that position, as have other prominent people within the ACLU. Our basis for supporting it was so narrow and so historically contingent that I really have my doubts as to whether even the Fairness Doctrine itself would be reaffirmed if the ACLU National Board took another look at it. It was based on the notions of spectrum scarcity and of government having conveyed a public trust, if you will, to the broadcasters.
It seems high time for the ACLU to codify what looks like growing opposition to the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” by coming out in opposition to the revival of this disgusting idea now that Congress is once again considering it. Strossen is right here in the sense that the facts have changed and that technological advancements have allowed an huge expansion in message delivery methods. However, the implicit endorsement of federal government “ownership” of the airwaves is maloderous. It sounds kind of funny coming from the ACLU, which opposes reasonable government oversight of broadcasting, but seems to philosophically surrender ownnership to the same.
The ACLU’s 2003 SCOTUS case against the FEC puts forth some great arguments against the “Fairness Doctirne.” Despite the fact that this isn’t what was being addressed, and in the same section of this brief, they do distinguish between the two arguments, the same conclusions can be made regading the practical impact of the “Fairness Doctrine.”
First, when dealing with political speech, Congress cannot attempt to level the playing field by deciding that some speakers can no longer speak through the medium of their choice. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 48-49. Second, the exercise of constitutional rights cannot be “abridged on the plea that they may be exercised some other place.†Schad v. Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76-77 (1981). Third, Congress cannot discriminate among or between media in a way that “threatens to suppress the expression of particular ideas or viewpoints,†Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 447 (1990), or that operates “as effectively as a censor to check critical comment.†Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 585 (1983). All three principles reflect the First Amendment interest in neutrality, and all three principles are violated by the broadcast ban in Title II of the BCRA.
The “neutrality” referred to here is government neutrality, not the subjectively detemined “neutrality” of the content.
[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed “to secure the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,†and “assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.â€
Seems like a pretty good argument against the “FD.” The ACLU should apply it.
To the ACLU’s credit, it has come out in support of the Bennett Amendment to Senate Bill 1, which would remove the onerous First Amendment-trashing regulation of grassroots organizations.
Hopefully, the pressure from both sides of the spectrum will lead to the death of these two dangerous ideas.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News
Trackback URL
Comments
4 Responses to “Democrat-controlled Congress will “restore” the Constitution…right?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Glib, or any other contributor that knows:
Hate to ask this in the comments, but your link in the contributors isn’t working. Do you know who can help with users of STACLU while Jay is gone? I am a contributor who is having some posting problems. If you can, email me: nathanbradfield-at-gmail.com
Thanks.
Nah, anyone who believed that would be a fool. They certainly have their own power-grab agenda, but they will rein in the administration’s.
Who does “own” or “control” the airwaves if not the people of the US? How else would you allocate air?
AND Kucinich is running for President again, right??
From comments:Justice Dept. Reverses Stance on Domestic Spying
The Justice Department says it will give an independent body the authority to monitor the government
I WANT TO VOLUNTEER FOR THAT COMMITTEE! COME ON EVERYONE! NOW’S OUR CHANCE TO SHUT DOWN THE CONSTITUTION-SHREDDING CLAN!
So sick of this government - is NO LONGER AMERICA! and we have all allowed this to happen because of our silence!