Comments on: The Improprieties of the Fairness Doctrine http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/30/the-improprieties-of-the-fairness-doctrine/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Aaron M. Rodriguez http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/30/the-improprieties-of-the-fairness-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-75343 Aaron M. Rodriguez Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:22:46 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/30/the-improprieties-of-the-fairness-doctrine/#comment-75343 Joe, Localism would certainly put some more control features in place on the First Amendment. This warped understanding that since broadcast frequencies are a government commodity, then they are within their Constitutional parameters to balance the marketplace of opinion is wrongheaded. This is not the case with roads, streets, or freeways, which are also government commodities. For instance, it can be said that streets [like broadcast frequencies] were built to serve the public interest. However, the only regulations put in place regarding our streets happen to deal with safety laws such as speeding or right of way. We don't see the Feds monitoring the streets to make sure there is a proper balance of men to women, blacks to whites, rich to poor driving to and fro. It is not the job of our government to balance anything let alone our right to speech. I predict that if the Fairness Doctrine is codified in the next four years, it will find itself before the Supreme Court getting clubbed like a little seal. If liberals were smart [in an evil way of course], they would drop the whole "balance" issue, and write a bill that caps conglomerates like Clear Channel into manageable sizes and require them to re-apply for their license every year or so using localism as one of the standards. They would need to be careful though because doing this would open a Pandora's box concerning Cable and Print media. Just my two cents. Joe,

Localism would certainly put some more control features in place on the First Amendment.

This warped understanding that since broadcast frequencies are a government commodity, then they are within their Constitutional parameters to balance the marketplace of opinion is wrongheaded.

This is not the case with roads, streets, or freeways, which are also government commodities. For instance, it can be said that streets [like broadcast frequencies] were built to serve the public interest. However, the only regulations put in place regarding our streets happen to deal with safety laws such as speeding or right of way. We don’t see the Feds monitoring the streets to make sure there is a proper balance of men to women, blacks to whites, rich to poor driving to and fro. It is not the job of our government to balance anything let alone our right to speech.

I predict that if the Fairness Doctrine is codified in the next four years, it will find itself before the Supreme Court getting clubbed like a little seal. If liberals were smart [in an evil way of course], they would drop the whole “balance” issue, and write a bill that caps conglomerates like Clear Channel into manageable sizes and require them to re-apply for their license every year or so using localism as one of the standards.

They would need to be careful though because doing this would open a Pandora’s box concerning Cable and Print media.

Just my two cents.

]]> By: Joe Lammers http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/30/the-improprieties-of-the-fairness-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-75342 Joe Lammers Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:56:14 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/30/the-improprieties-of-the-fairness-doctrine/#comment-75342 Obama is probably smart enough not to try to revive the "Fairness Doctrine". Instead he will probably go after conservative talk radio through a doctrine called "localism", in which "community leaders" and "underserved groups" would be encouraged to sit on the advisory boards of radio stations. These "community organizers" would determine whether the programming met the "needs of the community". Either way, none of this is compatible with the 1st amendment. Obama is probably smart enough not to try to revive the “Fairness Doctrine”. Instead he will probably go after conservative talk radio through a doctrine called “localism”, in which “community leaders” and “underserved groups” would be encouraged to sit on the advisory boards of radio stations. These “community organizers” would determine whether the programming met the “needs of the community”.

Either way, none of this is compatible with the 1st amendment.

]]>