Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
ACLU: Relax, It’s Not the Thought Police
Relax, It’s Not the Thought Police
By Gabe Rottman
I get paid to defend unpopular speech. And, I’m the first to jump at the slightest hint of government censorship or coercion in the free market of ideas...But many conservatives are wrongly invoking the First Amendment to slam a survey of various media outlets, administered by the Federal Communications Commission, which is intended to collect information to help the FCC identify “critical information needs” in American communities. The survey’s findings will be central in efforts to maintain competition among newsrooms and protect viewpoint diversity, both crucial First Amendment values. (I’d also note that this is a case where the FCC is affirmatively trying to get a sense of the market before regulating, also a good move for speech.)
Complaints range. Some, like FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, call it a latter-day “fairness doctrine,” the very old rule at the FCC that broadcast licensees had to cover and present both sides of controversial issues. Others have gone much further, going so far as to accuse the FCC of thought policing. As much as I’d like to join another strange bedfellows First Amendment alliance, both concerns are seriously overwrought.
Let me start with the fairness doctrine. The FCC implemented the rule in 1949, in the very early years of television. It was, in fact, the second year of the CBS Evening News, which pioneered the use of the now standard regular anchor. Market dynamics were much different. It was an age of extreme concentration in the fledgling television industry, and similar problems in radio...the FCC implemented a policy with two prongs. One, licensees had to try and cover controversial public issues. Two, they had to present competing perspectives (though not necessarily on an equal footing). To be sure, the doctrine served an admirable purpose – avoiding monopolization of the airwaves by the supporters on one side of an important issue. Nevertheless, violations of the doctrine were backed up by a big stick: license revocation.
This is not that.
<...>
The thought police argument is more easily disposed of. The FCC does literally police thought by levying fines for broadcasters who air sexual, scatological or profane material, which, ironically, many of the conservatives calling foul here actually support. Again, this is not that. There is no enforcement threat. And there is nothing obvious on the face of the survey that will have a coercive effect on the content of the news.
- more -
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/relax-its-not-thought-police
By Gabe Rottman
I get paid to defend unpopular speech. And, I’m the first to jump at the slightest hint of government censorship or coercion in the free market of ideas...But many conservatives are wrongly invoking the First Amendment to slam a survey of various media outlets, administered by the Federal Communications Commission, which is intended to collect information to help the FCC identify “critical information needs” in American communities. The survey’s findings will be central in efforts to maintain competition among newsrooms and protect viewpoint diversity, both crucial First Amendment values. (I’d also note that this is a case where the FCC is affirmatively trying to get a sense of the market before regulating, also a good move for speech.)
Complaints range. Some, like FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, call it a latter-day “fairness doctrine,” the very old rule at the FCC that broadcast licensees had to cover and present both sides of controversial issues. Others have gone much further, going so far as to accuse the FCC of thought policing. As much as I’d like to join another strange bedfellows First Amendment alliance, both concerns are seriously overwrought.
Let me start with the fairness doctrine. The FCC implemented the rule in 1949, in the very early years of television. It was, in fact, the second year of the CBS Evening News, which pioneered the use of the now standard regular anchor. Market dynamics were much different. It was an age of extreme concentration in the fledgling television industry, and similar problems in radio...the FCC implemented a policy with two prongs. One, licensees had to try and cover controversial public issues. Two, they had to present competing perspectives (though not necessarily on an equal footing). To be sure, the doctrine served an admirable purpose – avoiding monopolization of the airwaves by the supporters on one side of an important issue. Nevertheless, violations of the doctrine were backed up by a big stick: license revocation.
This is not that.
<...>
The thought police argument is more easily disposed of. The FCC does literally police thought by levying fines for broadcasters who air sexual, scatological or profane material, which, ironically, many of the conservatives calling foul here actually support. Again, this is not that. There is no enforcement threat. And there is nothing obvious on the face of the survey that will have a coercive effect on the content of the news.
- more -
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/relax-its-not-thought-police
Nothing FCC related scares the RW more than the Fairness Doctrine.
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Definition: Always both sides to present their views.
Corporate media now presents the views of 6 billionaire owners who are conservative.
They fire anyone who doesn't espouse their views. They turn the mike off or shush anyone who doesn't agree.
They are what the FCC was formed to combat, only one view being presented.
It takes the ACLU to point out the obvious, that the Fairness Doctrine is not censorship.
But will billionaire owned media report it?
Not gonna hold my breath on that one...
Corporate media now presents the views of 6 billionaire owners who are conservative.
They fire anyone who doesn't espouse their views. They turn the mike off or shush anyone who doesn't agree.
They are what the FCC was formed to combat, only one view being presented.
It takes the ACLU to point out the obvious, that the Fairness Doctrine is not censorship.
But will billionaire owned media report it?
Not gonna hold my breath on that one...