Confessions of a Six Figure Professional Blogger

Fairness Doctrine Apply To Bloggers?

August 12, 2008 | Ramblings

1984 Some very cryptic words came out of the mouth of the FCC Commissioner today. Those words were “government dictating content policy”.

These are part of comments regarding the Fairness Doctrine and how it could end up applying to Internet content. From the story:

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

McDowell wasn’t coming out in support of this, but warning that the Fairness Doctrine might pick up steam under a new U.S. administration.

The Fairness Doctrine is essentially the government regulating content on the airwaves, mandating that controversial issues be presented with both sides. Conservative talk radio has long been rallying against this because they point out, correctly so, that this is a gross encroachment on the First Amendment.

Many Democrats have been in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, probably because their viewpoint, they feel, doesn’t get equal treatment on the radio so they see government regulation as the only way to do it. If Obama gets elected, it is possible that the Fairness Doctrine would again see the light of day.

So, would it affect the Internet? If we begin to see crossover into a debate on net neutrality, then we could easily see this affect Internet content.

The Fairness Doctrine is a colossally bad idea. Blogs are a form of media, too, which means we should all be vocal in opposition of this if it ever comes into the public debate in a serious way.

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like...

  1. Beware of Free Speech Infringement [Soapbox Talk]
  2. Iran Bans Google
  3. Is The Media Bad For Mankind? Why Blogs Matter
  4. Iran to Kill Bloggers?
  5. Debate Over Sponsored Conversations: Get Over It.

Learn The Real Story On Blogging As a Business...

  • Get immediate FREE access to the Six Figure Blogger Blueprint
  • Get exclusive stuff NOT available on this blog.
  • Get the latest updates from the weird Risley man who runs this site.

Enter email:

  • Joseph Ammerman
    Your statement: "Conservative talk radio has long been rallying against this because they point out, correctly so, that this is a gross encroachment on the First Amendment"

    is incorrect. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Fairness Doctrine is NOT an encroachment on the First Amendment - hence it's lawfulness.
  • Ken
    You can know that implementing the "Fairness Doctrine" will be anything but fair. We'll all see further erosion of our freedoms. The liberals are trying to re-institute this. In a Democratic liberal administration it will be used for one thing and one thing only, to silence opposition. The utter stupidity in America today is frightening. If we don't wake up, it's going to cost us all our freedoms!
  • Just because it has never applied before doesn't mean it can't. And, sorry, I still believe it is a very bad idea. It introduces all kinds of gray areas and slippery slopes. Who is going to define "monopoly" here, the same people who enforce the Fairness Doctrine? Hhmmm...
  • The "Fairness Doctrine" is imposed on those who have A MONOPOLY to broadcast using PUBLIC AIRWAVES.

    It has NEVER applied to print publications, even though they may be distributed through the US Mail, because there is no limit to the number of different publications that may use the US Mail for distribution.

    It has never applied to the telephone company, even though they have a monopoly on that utility, because the telephone company is not a content provider.

    Because a cable system is distributed on wires that utilize public right-of-way, and because they are acting as a content provider, it is reasonable that they be required to obey the fairness doctrine.

    If they provide TCP/IP connectivity allowing for multiple ISPs to provide services such as DNS, POP3, SMTP, then there's no reason their internet service should be required to meet the fairness doctrine. If they provide a bundled service including not just connectivity but services such as the protocols mentioned, then they can reasonably be required to meet the fairness doctrine.

    The fairness doctrine is NOT a "colossally bad idea". They are a "patch" that ameliorates the damage wrought when public monopolies are created and allowed to persist. A far better idea than the fairness doctrine, of course, would separate the TCP/IP connectivity function and the content-provider function, so that monopolies aren't in a position to allow or disallow any particular content, and so that content-providers are not allowed a monopoly on connectivity.
blog comments powered by Disqus