11-23-2008, 02:42 PM
Don't you think it's a quite a leap from the statement of one senator to the conclusion that "the incoming Democratic Congress intends to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine"? How strong is the sentiment amongst the other Democratic lawmakers to do this? Not very. Obama has stated that he does not favor its reinstatement.
The Fairness Doctrine was restricted to stations licensed by the FCC. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional. Statements like, "It boils down to the idea that if the government can regulate anything, it can regulate everything" don't come close to capturing the issue. The analogy about government regulating meat in markets so it could regulate how you deal with meat in your kitchen is not at all apt. There simply are no significant similarities between the what the Fairness Doctrine was about and the connection between government regulation of meat in a market and meat in the home. That whole part of the case made is not much more than fatuous and/or inflammatory statements.
I would agree that it was unfortunate for Schumer to use government regulation of pornography as a rationalization for regulating political speech. But you go off track from a roughly okay statement, "Furthermore, it likens political speech and discussion to pornography," to inflammatory nonsense, ""track down rogue conservative talk radio hosts and accuse them of corrupting the minds of our citizens with aural bestiality". The latter is nothing at all the kind of likeness Schumer was talking about. The likeness Schumer was referring to was that just like the FCC can regulate pornography it can regulate giving equal time to those who disagree with political speech given by a FCC regulated station. (At least as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, Schumer is correct about that.) Liberal talk shows would also be required to provide equal time for conservatives to state their views under a Fairness Doctrine. The statement about tracking down conservative talk show hosts is just more inflammatory nonsense.
This stuff about the Fairness Doctrine is just a way conservative talk show hosts have of keeping their audiences riled up. The Fairness Doctrine never was going to be passed by the new congress, but now that they've thrown a big hissy-fit about it, when it doesn't pass they'll want to take credit for shooting it down. C'est la vie.
The Fairness Doctrine was restricted to stations licensed by the FCC. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional. Statements like, "It boils down to the idea that if the government can regulate anything, it can regulate everything" don't come close to capturing the issue. The analogy about government regulating meat in markets so it could regulate how you deal with meat in your kitchen is not at all apt. There simply are no significant similarities between the what the Fairness Doctrine was about and the connection between government regulation of meat in a market and meat in the home. That whole part of the case made is not much more than fatuous and/or inflammatory statements.
I would agree that it was unfortunate for Schumer to use government regulation of pornography as a rationalization for regulating political speech. But you go off track from a roughly okay statement, "Furthermore, it likens political speech and discussion to pornography," to inflammatory nonsense, ""track down rogue conservative talk radio hosts and accuse them of corrupting the minds of our citizens with aural bestiality". The latter is nothing at all the kind of likeness Schumer was talking about. The likeness Schumer was referring to was that just like the FCC can regulate pornography it can regulate giving equal time to those who disagree with political speech given by a FCC regulated station. (At least as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, Schumer is correct about that.) Liberal talk shows would also be required to provide equal time for conservatives to state their views under a Fairness Doctrine. The statement about tracking down conservative talk show hosts is just more inflammatory nonsense.
This stuff about the Fairness Doctrine is just a way conservative talk show hosts have of keeping their audiences riled up. The Fairness Doctrine never was going to be passed by the new congress, but now that they've thrown a big hissy-fit about it, when it doesn't pass they'll want to take credit for shooting it down. C'est la vie.