Supreme Court examines whether government can combat disinformation online

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Let's address this

Knew that this was going to come up it always does.

The Fairness Doctrine is not some magical pixie dust that makes the truth materialize out of nowhere.

Its constitutional underpinnings (scarcity of the broadcast spectrum and the FCC's licensing power) have pretty much gone the way of the dodo.

Honestly, how much of your information comes from over the air, FCC licensed sources?

If you are like most people, you get your information from the web or cable outlets both of which are beyond the FCC's regulatory power and very little from the three major broadcast networks.

As I mentioned earlier, the scarcity argument is no longer valid. Back then, you had TV networks ABC, NBC, CBS and later Fox (not the news network but the entertainment side) and a spread of radio stations.

By the 1980s, cable penetrated and provided new sources (CNN and its ilk) and then came the internet which provides a consumer virtually unlimited sources. These technological changes wiped out the constitutional justification for its existence,

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, especially if it was expanded beyond the FCC's mandate, would draw innumerable 1st amendment claims which would more than likely be upheld and the expanded Fairness Doctrine would die.

You DO REALIZE that laws/statutes can be changed/adapted right?

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was one such piece of legislation that sought to update the old radio/telephone-based communication to include newer technology and opened up the "web" for "commercial use" (where previously it was limited to federal people like ME (before I retired) with .gov access (along with the .mil & .edu).

I would like you to put on your "look into the future" goggles:

No you need to put on your "way back" goggles and compare "back then" to "now" and realize that "nothing is set in stone" and "laws/rules/regulations" CAN CHANGE.

How would you like to see a place like DU to be required to have opposing (rightwing conservative) viewpoints? Freepers would have to be accepted, their postings accepted and not tombstoned.

Lots of fun, huh?

The First Amendment itself dealt with "petitioning the government for redress". FULL STOP.

How that "happens" is the debate here - whether you go out and protest with a sign or appear on a "government-licensed" outlet.

Anecdotally, I worked in radio during the waning days of the Fairness Doctrine. You might remember that radio stations were mostly music (AM or FM, it didn't matter). There was a reason for that: Stations were not obligated to carry any news so, to avoid FD complaints, they didn't. They addressed their public interest obligations by putting religious shows and noncontroversial public affairs program recounting the city/town/county legislature actions and, in certain areas, providing ethnic programming (we did Polka music with a Polish speaker).

"Anecdotally", I worked at my college radio station (FM 1000W) the 4 years (late '70s - early '80s) I was there and went through the process to obtain what was then dubbed a "Third Class Radiotelephone Operator's Permit" so that I could operate the (old/analog) board and shut down/turn on the station transmitter as needed (as well as maintain the station log for the FCC). While in college I *did * have computer/mainframe/internet access. In addition, my father was a programmer for the VA (pre-Department creation when it was called the "Veteran's Administration" ) where he was programming in COBOL (for the VA Benefits checks), from the mid -'50s to the mid-'70s (when he passed away).

Sometimes people know a bit more than you think and you know what they say about one who might ASSUME.