Post by Rob W. Case on Jun 28, 2007 3:10:14 GMT -6
Liberals never change. They plow towards a goal and unless restrained, they go for what they want, regardless of who they have to trample on (like the people whom they are elected to represent) to get it. It is of no surprise to me that they target each of our constitutional rights or regulate them to a point to where it suppresses one to exercise them. In other words, if you want to access your constitutional rights, you practically have to jump through hoops to retain them.
The Constitution, to date, consists of 27 Amendments, the first of which states that Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Today, we face a threat from Congress to abridge freedom of speech, and the press (the part that reports what doesn’t normally get reported in the “mainstream”) which may in fact result in mobilizing people to peaceably assemble to petition the Government for a remedy of grievances. In other words, if we do not like what they’re doing, we should have the….
A. Knowledge of what will or may affect us.
B. Right to protest.
C. Right to fight it.
Since the Democrats regained both Houses of Congress, Democrats have now led themselves to believe that the American voters want everything that they want, and if they don’t, they will, if enough laws are passed to suppress information from getting to the people, making their sugar-coated rhetoric the only source of information out there to gain support.
The Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair. It has been around before, and has been defeated before.
History of the Fairness Doctrine:
In 1949, before television was a mainstream medium in American households, the FCC adopted the view that broadcast licenses were responsible for the public’s learning on issues that affect it. Since radio was the main source of broadcasting in those days, the Fairness Doctrine assured that each bandwidth offered both sides of an argument if an argument affecting public policy was being made or in the process of being made.
It doesn’t sound so bad on the surface, right? It gets deeper than that. In 1969, a Reverend by the name of Billy James Hargis discussed a book by Fred J. Cook entitled “Goldwater - Extremist on the Right”. Of course, Barry Goldwater was the Republican candidate for president in 1964. The Reverend Hargis revealed on his program Cook’s background of working for a Communist-affiliated publication, defending Alger Hiss, a Democrat who worked for the U.S. State Department and who sold U.S. intelligence secrets to the Russians……
homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/
…. As well as attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the CIA.
When Cook heard of the broadcast, he established that he was attacked personally and demanded airtime to reply. The station refused, and the fight went to the Supreme Court in a ruling titled Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC.
(Read the entire ruling here….)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=367
As the Fairness Doctrine continued its tenure, journalists started to feel that it violated the First Amendment, and sought the right to balance the stories themselves. Journalists felt that in America, free speech should not be regulated by the FCC. Regulation on speech is what totalitarian governments do when they seek control of their public’s intake of information. Such control is likely to soften the mind to a degree of which it may not distinguish propaganda for what it is (thus accepting it as fact) and what isn’t. This is what is shown in every other despotic nation that enforces state control of its content.
Here is a recent example.
www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6667410,00.html
Excerpt: CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.
As the Fairness Doctrine continued, some journalists avoided covering controversial issues altogether which was the exact opposite of what the FCC intended.
The Fairness Doctrine and the 1980’s Showdown:
While President Ronald Reagan was defeating communism abroad, he was also out to defeat communist-style measures in this country. In the 1980’s, the boiling point over the Fairness Doctrine was coming to a head.
By 1985 Mark Fowler, a fierce critic of the Fairness Doctrine and head the FCC cited that the Fairness Doctrine was, in his own words, “chilling to free speech.” By 1987, Dennis Patrick, the new head of the FCC concluded that the Fairness Doctrine, “on its face, violates the First Amendment and contravenes the public interest.” After the FCC shut down the Fairness Doctrine, Congress (controlled by Democrats) voted to force the doctrine into law—a dictated Fairness Doctrine that the FCC would have to enforce whether it wanted to or not.
President Reagan addressed the measure on June 19, 1987. Here is the entire content of what he said. I am posting this because the truths embedded in this speech are just as truthful today as they were 20 years ago.
Message to the Senate Returning Without Approval the Fairness in Broadcasting Bill
June 19, 1987
To the Senate of the United States:
I am returning herewith without my approval S. 742, the ``Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987,'' which would codify the so-called ``fairness doctrine.'' This doctrine, which has evolved through the decisional process of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints on those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In any other medium besides broadcasting, such Federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable. The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the ``fairness doctrine,'' chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' More recently, the United States Supreme Court, in striking down a right-of-access statute that applied to newspapers, spoke of the statute's intrusion into the function of the editorial process and concluded that ``t has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.'' Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974).
I recognize that 18 years ago the Supreme Court indicated that the fairness doctrine as then applied to a far less technologically advanced broadcast industry did not contravene the First Amendment. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The Red Lion decision was based on the theory that usable broadcast frequencies were then so inherently scarce that government regulation of broadcasters was inevitable and the FCC's ``fairness doctrine'' seemed to be a reasonable means of promoting diverse and vigorous debate of controversial issues.
The Supreme Court indicated in Red Lion a willingness to reconsider the appropriateness of the fairness doctrine if it reduced rather than enhanced broadcast coverage. In a later case, the Court acknowledged the changes in the technological and economic environment in which broadcasters operate. It may now be fairly concluded that the growth in the number of available media outlets does indeed outweigh whatever justifications may have seemed to exist at the period during which the doctrine was developed. The FCC itself has concluded that the doctrine is an unnecessary and detrimental regulatory mechanism. After a massive study of the effects of its own rule, the FCC found in 1985 that the recent explosion in the number of new information sources such as cable television has clearly made the ``fairness doctrine'' unnecessary. Furthermore, the FCC found that the doctrine in fact inhibits broadcasters from presenting controversial issues of public importance, and thus defeats its own purpose.
Quite apart from these technological advances, we must not ignore the obvious intent of the First Amendment, which is to promote vigorous public debate and a diversity of viewpoints in the public forum as a whole, not in any particular medium, let alone in any particular journalistic outlet. History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.
S. 742 simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by our Constitution. It is, in my judgment, unconstitutional. Well-intentioned as S. 742 may be, it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment and with the American tradition of independent journalism. Accordingly, I am compelled to disapprove this measure.
Ronald Reagan
The White House,
June 19, 1987.
Note: The message was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on June 20.
Reagan’s inaugural pledge to try and keep big government from butting into our lives, our business, and our constitutional rights through regulation, vetoed the measure. After the veto, Congress tried to override it, but there weren’t enough votes to successfully do so.
Editor’s Note: Part II of this article will soon be followed by this post. Please check back again soon. Trust me, it will be worth it.
The Constitution, to date, consists of 27 Amendments, the first of which states that Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Today, we face a threat from Congress to abridge freedom of speech, and the press (the part that reports what doesn’t normally get reported in the “mainstream”) which may in fact result in mobilizing people to peaceably assemble to petition the Government for a remedy of grievances. In other words, if we do not like what they’re doing, we should have the….
A. Knowledge of what will or may affect us.
B. Right to protest.
C. Right to fight it.
Since the Democrats regained both Houses of Congress, Democrats have now led themselves to believe that the American voters want everything that they want, and if they don’t, they will, if enough laws are passed to suppress information from getting to the people, making their sugar-coated rhetoric the only source of information out there to gain support.
The Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair. It has been around before, and has been defeated before.
History of the Fairness Doctrine:
In 1949, before television was a mainstream medium in American households, the FCC adopted the view that broadcast licenses were responsible for the public’s learning on issues that affect it. Since radio was the main source of broadcasting in those days, the Fairness Doctrine assured that each bandwidth offered both sides of an argument if an argument affecting public policy was being made or in the process of being made.
It doesn’t sound so bad on the surface, right? It gets deeper than that. In 1969, a Reverend by the name of Billy James Hargis discussed a book by Fred J. Cook entitled “Goldwater - Extremist on the Right”. Of course, Barry Goldwater was the Republican candidate for president in 1964. The Reverend Hargis revealed on his program Cook’s background of working for a Communist-affiliated publication, defending Alger Hiss, a Democrat who worked for the U.S. State Department and who sold U.S. intelligence secrets to the Russians……
homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/
…. As well as attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the CIA.
When Cook heard of the broadcast, he established that he was attacked personally and demanded airtime to reply. The station refused, and the fight went to the Supreme Court in a ruling titled Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC.
(Read the entire ruling here….)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=367
As the Fairness Doctrine continued its tenure, journalists started to feel that it violated the First Amendment, and sought the right to balance the stories themselves. Journalists felt that in America, free speech should not be regulated by the FCC. Regulation on speech is what totalitarian governments do when they seek control of their public’s intake of information. Such control is likely to soften the mind to a degree of which it may not distinguish propaganda for what it is (thus accepting it as fact) and what isn’t. This is what is shown in every other despotic nation that enforces state control of its content.
Here is a recent example.
www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6667410,00.html
Excerpt: CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.
As the Fairness Doctrine continued, some journalists avoided covering controversial issues altogether which was the exact opposite of what the FCC intended.
The Fairness Doctrine and the 1980’s Showdown:
While President Ronald Reagan was defeating communism abroad, he was also out to defeat communist-style measures in this country. In the 1980’s, the boiling point over the Fairness Doctrine was coming to a head.
By 1985 Mark Fowler, a fierce critic of the Fairness Doctrine and head the FCC cited that the Fairness Doctrine was, in his own words, “chilling to free speech.” By 1987, Dennis Patrick, the new head of the FCC concluded that the Fairness Doctrine, “on its face, violates the First Amendment and contravenes the public interest.” After the FCC shut down the Fairness Doctrine, Congress (controlled by Democrats) voted to force the doctrine into law—a dictated Fairness Doctrine that the FCC would have to enforce whether it wanted to or not.
President Reagan addressed the measure on June 19, 1987. Here is the entire content of what he said. I am posting this because the truths embedded in this speech are just as truthful today as they were 20 years ago.
Message to the Senate Returning Without Approval the Fairness in Broadcasting Bill
June 19, 1987
To the Senate of the United States:
I am returning herewith without my approval S. 742, the ``Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987,'' which would codify the so-called ``fairness doctrine.'' This doctrine, which has evolved through the decisional process of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints on those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In any other medium besides broadcasting, such Federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable. The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the ``fairness doctrine,'' chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' More recently, the United States Supreme Court, in striking down a right-of-access statute that applied to newspapers, spoke of the statute's intrusion into the function of the editorial process and concluded that ``t has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.'' Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974).
I recognize that 18 years ago the Supreme Court indicated that the fairness doctrine as then applied to a far less technologically advanced broadcast industry did not contravene the First Amendment. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The Red Lion decision was based on the theory that usable broadcast frequencies were then so inherently scarce that government regulation of broadcasters was inevitable and the FCC's ``fairness doctrine'' seemed to be a reasonable means of promoting diverse and vigorous debate of controversial issues.
The Supreme Court indicated in Red Lion a willingness to reconsider the appropriateness of the fairness doctrine if it reduced rather than enhanced broadcast coverage. In a later case, the Court acknowledged the changes in the technological and economic environment in which broadcasters operate. It may now be fairly concluded that the growth in the number of available media outlets does indeed outweigh whatever justifications may have seemed to exist at the period during which the doctrine was developed. The FCC itself has concluded that the doctrine is an unnecessary and detrimental regulatory mechanism. After a massive study of the effects of its own rule, the FCC found in 1985 that the recent explosion in the number of new information sources such as cable television has clearly made the ``fairness doctrine'' unnecessary. Furthermore, the FCC found that the doctrine in fact inhibits broadcasters from presenting controversial issues of public importance, and thus defeats its own purpose.
Quite apart from these technological advances, we must not ignore the obvious intent of the First Amendment, which is to promote vigorous public debate and a diversity of viewpoints in the public forum as a whole, not in any particular medium, let alone in any particular journalistic outlet. History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.
S. 742 simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by our Constitution. It is, in my judgment, unconstitutional. Well-intentioned as S. 742 may be, it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment and with the American tradition of independent journalism. Accordingly, I am compelled to disapprove this measure.
Ronald Reagan
The White House,
June 19, 1987.
Note: The message was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on June 20.
Reagan’s inaugural pledge to try and keep big government from butting into our lives, our business, and our constitutional rights through regulation, vetoed the measure. After the veto, Congress tried to override it, but there weren’t enough votes to successfully do so.
Editor’s Note: Part II of this article will soon be followed by this post. Please check back again soon. Trust me, it will be worth it.
