The time is coming that the left is going to begin its drive for Single Payer Internet, and so the time has come for us to fight back. Finland is gradually nationalizing the Internet and declaring use of other people’s Internet hardware a “right,” and the left is cheering. Obama’s “Internet Czar” does not hide the left’s hopes for an end to freedom and markets for Internet service.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, President Barack Obama, and the rest of the radical left want to use the Net Neutrality movement as the crisis that gives cover to sweeping big government action, allowing the FCC to pick winners and losers and dictate to private individuals and firms how their private property must be run, putting government bureaucrats in charge of the Internet.
The dangers of the administration’s Net Neutrality plans are not theoretical:
If the Democrats were honest about all the protests over healthcare, they would have to admit they are being outmaneuvered with their own tactics. That is why they are accusing protestors at townhalls of being astroturf. They are so used to planting anti-war protestors at events and using union thugs, they have never seen actual middle class working people take time off from their jobs to protest.
Here’s a clue for them — it is not lobbyist backed astroturf. It is not AFP and FreedomWorks hired guns showing up. The networks they have are actually not large enough to make it all happen.
What the Democrats are experiencing is the power of local radio. I’m getting asked by lots of people, “Okay, seriously, how are people finding out about these events and showing up?” Look no further than 97.1 FM in St. Louis. The morning guys there have been pushing people to take on Russ Carnahan over Cash for Clunkers and healthcare.
Congressman Greg Walden and I have offered an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations Bill. This amendment would prevent any funding to the FCC from being used to either reinstate the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ or enact proposed broadcast localism regulations during the next fiscal year.
The American people cherish freedom, especially freedom of speech and of the press. That was why President Reagan repealed the so-called Fairness Doctrine back in 1987. For more than four decades, the federal government actually regulated the content of American talk radio and the chilling effect of this regulation was undeniable.
Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine today would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airways.
Democrats from Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Senators Dick Durbin, and John Kerry have called for the return of this kind of regulation to the airwaves of America, but thanks to the support of millions of freedom-loving Americans, we were able to mostly close the front door to this government censorship.
So now they are trying to sneak through the back door with regulations known as ‘broadcast localism.’ These regulations are just a Trojan Horse for unelected bureaucrats in Washington to determine what you can or cannot listen to.
In a time when we are witnessing an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into various sectors, the last thing we need is a government takeover of America’s airwaves. It’s not what the American People want, and it’s not something this Congress should allow.
Let your Member of Congress and demand an up-or-down vote on the Walden-Pence Broadcaster Freedom Amendment. Call TODAY, Tuesday, July 14 because the Rules Committee is scheduled to meet at 3:00pm to decide which amendments to allow. If our amendment is made in order, it can be offered on the House floor when the Financial Services Appropriations bill is considered later this week. The Capitol Switchboard is(202) 224-3121.
Let’s get the word out: No More Government Takeover. This amendment would stop the government from taking over the airwaves and would preserve our cherished First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
President John F. Kennedy once stated that ‘We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.’
We believe that America is a nation of freedom and strong opinion-our government must not be afraid to entrust the American people with all the facts and opinions necessary to make the choices as an informed electorate.
If the Walden-Pence Broadcaster Freedom Amendment is brought to the floor of this Congress, it will surely pass; because every time freedom gets an up-or-down vote in the People’s House, freedom always wins.
The comments by Press that “nobody” is calling for a return of the “fairness doctrine” are also curious because Press himself wrote an op-ed calling for the return of the “fairness doctrine” in the Washington Post around the same time.
Two stories emerged this week that demonstrate the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of the media reform agenda. It is just another attempt to gain power for the left.
A Huffington Post writer argued that Clear Channel and Rupert Murdoch’s media empire should be broken up by the FCC and the DOJ’s anti-trust division:
The Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a revivified Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice could pursue all sorts of reforms that would open up the nation’s political discourse. A few minor changes in the rules and regulations governing the public airwaves and corporate media consolidation could transform the political economy of the media sector. Such reforms would make it more difficult for networks to shove people like Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer down our throats because enhanced competition would mean that rivals might be broadcasting more attractive fare. Breaking up Rupert Murdoch’s empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post), and busting up Clear Channel’s monopoly of radio would be a good place to start. Congress, working with the Obama Administration, could then revisit the odious Telecommunications Act of 1996 and remove or rework its worst provisions. Look at what the media monopolies did during the Bush years. The Bush Administration never could have lied us into going to war in Iraq if it were not for the duplicity of the corporate media.
Although Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) won a vote renouncing The Fairness Doctrine 87-11 last week (see the post for more details), Senator Dick Durbin won a vote on a measure that has the potential to stifle free speech and destroy conservative talk radio on a 57-41 vote. A Durbin Amendment to implement a different regulatory roadmap for the FCC to stifle talk radio was passed during Senate consideration of a bill to provide a vote in the House of Representatives to the District of Columbia. The vote on the Durbin measure is an interesting case study on how the left is working attack conservative talk radio through what I call the Son of the Fairness Doctrine.
Of course, the radicals at the (Un)Free Press weren’t about to let one of the Left’s old favorite regulations go so away without asking for something in return. One of the reasons that Silver and Ammori are suddenly willing to give their blessing to the Doctrine’s burial is because they want to get on with the more far-reaching agenda of micro-managing media markets using a variety of less visible regulations.
Indeed, in their paper, Silver and Ammori go to great pains to try to show that the Fairness Doctrine supposedly has nothing to do with all the other regulations that they want Congress and the FCC to continue to enforce, or even expand. These goals include media ownership restrictions, diversity mandates, local programming regulation, and so on. Recognizing that the Fairness Doctrine was not only ineffective but also a useful tool for many on the political Right to whip their base into action, the Free Press moved to preemptively divorce their other pet projects from the Fairness Doctrine.
It’s a brilliant tactical move by Free Press; lull Limbaugh and other conservatives into a deep sleep by throwing them the bone of a Fairness Doctrine win, and then push a far more radical regulatory agenda through the back-door once they’ve stopped paying attention. Of course, these things cannot be as easily divorced as the Free Press radicals want us to believe. The Fairness Doctrine was just one part of a much grander regulatory paradigm that so-called progressives have pushed for under the banner of “public interest regulation.”
Kudos to Senators John Ensign (R-NV), John Thune (R-SD), Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) for using the bill to provide a vote in the House of Representatives to the District of Columbia to force votes today on expanding gun rights and trashing the idea of the federal government regulating the radio airwaves. These senators used an unconstitutional bill to essentially treat the District of Columbia as a state to force votes on guns and free speech.
Congress just passed another pork-stuffed omnibus spending package this week. Buried in the bill, however, is a provision that paves the way for Democrats to revive the misnamed ‘Fairness Doctrine’. Currently there is protection of free speech over the airwaves by prohibiting federal funds from being used to control and censor media content. Yesterday, the Majority elected to remove that protection.
There is no place for government control of political discussion over the air. The guarantee to free speech is one of the most vital pillars of the American political system – and a constitutional right. Yesterday’s action to restrict this freedom should raise red flags as to the intent of the majority party. President Obama has stated his opposition to airwave censorship, but his party’s leadership in Congress is determined to flex their political muscle at the expense of the First Amendment. Remember Lord Acton’s admonition: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
It’s time to do away with the outdated ‘Fairness Doctrine’ once and for all. But instead, Democrats have used the smokescreen of a $410 billion spending bill to cynically take a huge step toward censorship and free speech restrictions. As a result, the voice of free people everywhere got a little bit quieter. This does not bode well.
Don’t be fooled by President Obama’s purported renunciation of the Fairness Doctrine last week. The far left fully intends to use a new regulatory scheme, the Son of The Fairness Doctrine, to regulate conservative talk radio. As Erick Erickson wrote last week on Red State, “Congress will restrict how many stations a company can own in a market. They’ll also require advisory boards for each station and make it easier to address consumer complaints against stations.” Although the left has backed away from the Fairness Doctrine because it is ineffective, they are gathering support for an attack on conservative talk radio.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com that “As the President stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.” Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said to The Washington Times, “I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine … but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it. With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship.”
The Fairness Doctrine is going to make a comeback under the Obama administration. It just won’t be via Congress and it won’t be called the “Fairness Doctrine.” It’ll come via the FCC, involve restrictions on media ownership and content, and it’ll apply to the internet too.
As Brian Darling noted, the administration and leftists in Congress will be using the Center for American Progress’s outline.
“This isn’t just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven’t heard about,” says Democrat committee member. “The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we’ve established that broadband networks — the Internet — are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure.”
Here’s the gist of what’ll happen. Congress will restrict how many stations a company can own in a market. They’ll also require advisory boards for each station and make it easier to address consumer complaints against stations.
One of the requirements will be diversity of ideas on the air, so if a company is just broadcasting Rush Limbaugh on all stations in a state, consumers can file complaints. Likewise, the advisory boards’ demands will have to be adhered to by the stations.
If the stations’ advisory boards are filled with liberals who demand Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air, the station will have to comply in order to keep its license.
In addition, there’s this:
Also involved in “brainstorming” on “Fairness Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion.
So it’ll no longer be what the market wants. It’ll be what the left demands.
Usually I don’t go for the hard-edged treatment of politicians as my headline here does. I don’t often call individuals “liars” and the like, though I’ve been known to do so on occasion. Generally, I prefer to assume that those that oppose my views are truthfully advocating for deep held beliefs and not using lies and obfuscation to get there — some exceptions to that, of course. I am not really the biggest fan of the wild-eyed, Olbermannesque sort of bombast and name-calling.
But, after what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of his desire to push the ill-conceived “Fairness Doctrine” down our throats, I just can’t see any other explanation of his motives. Every single word he said on this issue was convoluted, unAmerican, illogical and meant solely as a cynical means to his ends of quashing free political speech so that his party could consolidate it’s domination of American politics.
Just 38% of U.S. voters think that the government should require all radio stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary.
Forty-seven percent (47%) oppose government-imposed political balance on radio stations, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure which course is better.
These findings are a dramatic nine-point drop-off in support for the Fairness Doctrine from a survey last August when 47% said the government should require all radio and television stations to offer balanced political commentary.
Maurice Hinchey is the latest Democrat to put the lie to the claim that we don’t need to worry about the Fairness Doctrine coming back. Clearly, the Democrats are putting up trial balloons to see how well the public might take to a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. One hopes that they will see those balloons shot down in short order.
Meanwhile, I loved this retort to Fairness Doctrine fans:
Republican Congressman Greg Walden, a former owner of five radio stations in Oregon including a “classic rock” station joked that the Fairness Doctrine is “the musical equivalent” of “every time we’d play a classic rock song we’d have to play a polka!”
There just has to be a way to use that retort in a 30-second ad against a revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
Usually I don’t go for the hard-edged treatment of politicians as my headline here does. I don’t often call individuals “liars” and the like, though I’ve been known to do so on occasion. Generally, I prefer to assume that those that oppose my views are truthfully advocating for deep held beliefs and not using lies and obfuscation to get there — some exceptions to that, of course. I am not really the biggest fan of the wild-eyed, Olbermannesque sort of bombast and name-calling. 
