The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Call to reinstate fairness doctrine after Arizona shooting not likely to result in action

Could the fairness doctrine be coming back?

Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the third ranking Democrat in the House, and Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York have both suggested in the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy that it might be a good idea to revisit the contentious rule. Despite their standing in the halls of Congress, however, experts say the chances of the rule’s revival are slim to none.

Practically speaking, bringing back the fairness doctrine could be done one of two ways: either by Congress passing legislation or by the commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voting on and passing a set of regulations.

“I’m very, very doubtful the FCC would reinstate it,” Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller. “If the FCC tries to, it will be hit with lawsuit, and it will lose much of power it already has.”

The day after the Tucson shooting that killed six people and injured 14, Clyburn called for new media standards to guarantee balanced coverage, along with the fairness doctrine. “Free speech is as free speech does,” Clyburn said. “You cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater and call it free speech and some of what I hear, and is being called free speech, is worse than that.”

Clyburn’s office did not return requests for comment.

Rep. Slaughter promised to look into ways to better control language on the airwaves, saying that the FCC just is “not working anymore.”

“What I’d like to see is if we could all get together on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and really talk about what we can do to cool down the country,” she said. “Part of that has to be what they’re hearing over the airwaves.”

Adam Thierer, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, pointed out that before the rule was repealed in 1987, it was already on a path to be overturned.

“It was eventually going to be overturned if the FCC had not essentially ended it itself,” Thierer told The Daily Caller. “The FCC saw the writing on the wall.”

“The reality is that the courts and FCC concluded it was not the case that the fairness doctrine encourages vibrant debate,” he added.

Harper agreed, telling TheDC that today, the fairness doctrine would not pass constitutional muster because it violates the First Amendment. “There are no grounds for government to tell any media outlet what to say,” he said.

But Thierer added that it’s also an issue of pragmatism. “Even if one assumed the congressman was correct, how in the world would we begin to enforce it in the modern information age? I just don’t see how you put the information genie back in the bottle,” he said. “The best way to deal with bad speech is with more and better speech.”

  • Pingback: — ExposeTheMedia.com

  • Pingback: Another Rhetorical Slaughter | The Buffalo Bean

  • Pingback: www.VISION-STRIKE-WEAR.com BLOG | America: Love it, or learn to…

  • Pingback: The Hate Speech Inquisition | Ace Campaign

  • Pingback: The Hate Speech Inquisition « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian

  • Pingback: Using Tragedy for Political Gain | raquelokyay.com

  • SCGirl

    I have to agree with Clyburn’s comment, “You cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater and call it free speech and some of what I hear, and is being called free speech, is worse than that.” It is appalling to read and hear the amount of hate and venom that comes spewing forth because the speaker is on a phone, radio or posting comments on the internet. These same people would not dream of making the same comments where other people would be able to bear witness.

    I don’t know the reason why people are participating in such uncivil and mannerless discourse. Perhaps it is the current affliction of “political correctness” stifling open debates on sensitive issues. Perhaps it is the knee-jerk response of labeling someone a “racist” because they have a lighter skin color and a differnt political opinion. Perhaps it is the Us-vs-Them mindset of our political parties. Perhaps it is the current fear and anxiety moving through our country because of the rising unemployment, housing forclosures along with the increasing sense of government big-brotherism and the overwhelming sense that the government isn’t going to be able to protect us from another terrorist attack. Who really knows?

    What is certain is that there is not enough real and honest discussion about the issues bothering people. This fear that their voices will be shut down or drowned out because of…say…political correctness. (Like what happened to Juan Williams) Fairness Doctrine? No, it is not the answer and in my opinion, it was replaced by an even harsher blanket policy of “Political Correctness”. Free Speech is anything but. You will be harshly judged and punished for having the temerity to freely express yourself.

    I believe that if there was no fear of reprisal for having a differnt opinion on sensitive issues (sensitive because they can not be completely and honestly discussed) then the real “Hate Speech” would be universally condemned by everyone. Instead, people are bottling up their anxiety and fears and when the anonymous opportunity becomes available – the result is all the bile and venom we are currently dealing with.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Call to reinstate fairness doctrine after Arizona shooting not likely to result in action | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment -- Topsy.com

  • fgoodwin

    (1) As the article mentioned, JFK, RFK, MLK and Ronald Reagan were all shot during the period that the Fairness Doctrine (FD) was in effect. So if Clyburn thinks that reinstating it will have a positive effect, he needs to explain why it didn’t work then but will somehow work now.

    (2) Many FD proponents want to “restore fairness to the airwaves”, because the FCC has jurisdiction over broadcast TV and radio. But the FCC has no such jurisdiction over cable news sources like CNN, FNC or MSNBC. So while the FD may muzzle Rush on the radio, all he has to do is move to cable and the FCC would be powerless to control what he says.

    Finally, (3) The FCC has no jurisdiction over political speech by candidates, particularly during live events. So the FD would not limit or affect what they say. Only if the event were broadcast on the radio or TV would the FD kick in, and then it would apply to the STATION not to the PERSON. If the political event were carried on cable, the FD would not apply at all.

    Bottom line: reinstatement of the FD would be a total and utter waste of time. OTOH such bluster makes the Dems look good to their base . . .

  • bigdave

    THE ONLY DEMOC RAT I KNOW OF WHO NEVER PUT HIMSELF BEFORE THE PEOPLE IS JFK…A “CONSERVATIVE”. TED KENNEDY,PELOSI, REID,RANGEL, OBAMA? ITS ALL ABOUT THEM AND SCREW THE PEOPLE. The “NEW DEMORATS” are the PROGRESSIVES who care only about CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR MONEY which has already been spent by these clowns. Know how we can afford to pay $600,000 per working/tax paying family to pay this national debt? HINT: it aint possible! thanks demorats!