The Fairness Doctrine Takedown
On a Wednesday, a progressive think tank and non-profit together release a report. For about a week, conservative commentators on-air and online make the most of a fresh chance to tear apart a public policy approach they generally despise. Then on the following Thursday, the House of Representatives votes overwhelmingly to block all federal funding for any implementation of any flavor of said policy. Game, set, match, and not bad for a week's work.
You'll remember that the Center for American Progress and Free Press released a report last week that once again raised the idea of the Fairness Doctrine, the telecom principle that in effect until the Reagan Administration that said that the public airwaves had to be used to promote a diversity of opinions. To dig into the details of the policy, that meant that radio spectrum licensees were required to address controversial issues and broadcast contrasting viewpoints. Also, anyone who was the target of an on-air personal attack had to be given the chance to clear his or her good name on-air.
Conservatives tend to hate the Fairness Doctrine, preferring an approach that says that in the free market of ideas, the thinking most appealing to the public would and should win out. To be fair, there are a great many liberal/progressives/lefties/whatever who dislike the Fairness Doctrine too, generally arguing on free speech grounds.
What began last week as a healthy discussion about the lack of diversity on political talk radio quickly devolved into round 3,482 of the great Fairness Doctrine debate. The conservative blogosphere went full bore on it, having a great time raising the Fairness Doctrine balloon and shooting it down, over and over again. And then yesterday the House of Representatives rushed en masse to vote for an amendment to an appropriations bill offered by Indiana's Mike Pence (himself a former radio guy) that would prevent the FCC from using one federal cent to implement the Fairness Doctrine or anything that smells like the Fairness Doctrine. The final vote was 309-115. Again, not too shabby for a week's work.
- FILED UNDER: Editor Posts
- June 29, 2007
Submitted by gbreez on June 29, 2007 - 3:01pm
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html
It's law already on the books.
Enforce it.
Between the RICO laws and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Bushco and Cheney-burton would go broke paying lawyers to defend them.
Section 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Section 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
(stacking the SCOTUS and US court system was a ass-covering move)
Section 4. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure
The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.
"Invest In America Buy A Congressman"--evolvefish
One election at a time......
- parent
By pb_trueJune 29, 2007 - 2:12pm