{"id":129,"date":"2009-02-16T14:39:39","date_gmt":"2009-02-16T14:39:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html"},"modified":"2009-02-16T14:39:39","modified_gmt":"2009-02-16T14:39:39","slug":"fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html","title":{"rendered":"Fairness Doctrine – By Any Other Name – Still Unfair"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry, it’s impossible to ignore the ongoing discussion and renewed calls from members of Congress to bring back the Fairness Doctrine or what many are saying will be legislation that will go by a different name.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As we’ve discussed before <\/a><\/font>, the Fairness Doctrine is an antiquated Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule dating back to the 1940s that was abandoned in 1987 during the Reagan administration.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

In theory, the Fairness Doctrine was designed to enhance political discourse by requiring television and radio broadcast stations to “cover vitally important controversial issues of interest in their communities” and “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on those controversial issues of public importance.” In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council Against Television Station WTVH Syracuse, New York<\/i>, 2 F.C.C.R. 5043 (1987).<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

In practice, however, the Fairness Doctrine stifled political debate and forced broadcasters to subsidize unpopular programs and significantly limit their coverage of controversial topics. After nearly four decades of experience in applying the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC concluded in August 1987 that “the fairness doctrine contravenes the First Amendment and thereby disserves the public interest.” <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

There’s a new flurry of activity in Congress – seeking to bring back this troubling measure or something like it.  <\/span>And, in our analysis <\/a><\/font><\/font><\/font>, such a move would be an unconstitutional attempt to stifle free speech.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod refused to rule out the possibility that the Fairness Doctrine would make a comeback.  <\/span>In an interview<\/a> with one of the Sunday news programs<\/font>, he said he would leave that issue to incoming FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski to discuss with President Obama.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

And, now comes a report that there are ongoing discussions about this very topic on Capitol Hill.  <\/span>Consider this from a news report <\/a><\/font> just out today: <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

“Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such.”<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

Barry, the American people understand what’s taking place.  <\/span>In a new poll <\/a>just released<\/font>, just 38% of Americans support government-mandated speech on radio – a sharp decline of nearly 10 points since the last survey taken in August.  <\/span>While 47% of Americans oppose government-imposed speech on radio stations, 65% of Americans believe it is likely that the Democrat-controlled Congress will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

We have seen repeated efforts to bring back this troubling regulatory measure. A 2005 bill sought to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine by requiring broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance” in a manner “consistent with the rules and policies of the Commission in effect on January 1, 1987.” H.R. 3302, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., July 14, 2005.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

The legislator who introduced that measure in 2005 now says he plans to reintroduce it in this session of Congress.   <\/span>Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D – NY) plans to reintroduce his 2005 bill. “We’re going to focus attention on [the Fairness Doctrine] and see what happens,” Hinchey told an Ohio newspaper<\/a>. <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

And, now, there’s a new wave of lawmakers who seem very intent on trying to bring this regulatory measure back.  <\/span>But this time, there’s talk of calling it something else.  <\/span>In recent weeks, a number of lawmakers<\/a> <\/font>– including Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) – expressed support for this type of legislation.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

Sen. Harkin told a radio show that “we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.”<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

And this from Sen. Stabenow in a recent interview:  <\/span>“I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.” <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

Barry, I know you don’t think this is a big deal.  <\/span>But, it’s hard to ignore the continued pleas from those who keep talking about bringing back regulation aimed at controlling conservative – including Christian – speech.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

Whether you call it the “Fairness Doctrine” or something else, this is a road that President Obama and Congress should not go down.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Barry, it’s impossible to ignore the ongoing discussion and renewed calls from members of Congress to bring back the Fairness Doctrine or what many are saying will be legislation that will go by a different name. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,63,36,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-congress","category-fairness-doctrine","category-free-speech","category-white-house"],"yoast_head":"\nFairness Doctrine - By Any Other Name - Still Unfair - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fairness Doctrine - By Any Other Name - Still Unfair - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Barry, it’s impossible to ignore the ongoing discussion and renewed calls from members of Congress to bring back the Fairness Doctrine or what many are saying will be legislation that will go by a different name. \" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-16T14:39:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Fairness Doctrine - By Any Other Name - Still Unfair - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fairness Doctrine - By Any Other Name - Still Unfair - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"Barry, it’s impossible to ignore the ongoing discussion and renewed calls from members of Congress to bring back the Fairness Doctrine or what many are saying will be legislation that will go by a different name. ","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2009-02-16T14:39:39+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html","name":"Fairness Doctrine - By Any Other Name - Still Unfair - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-16T14:39:39+00:00","dateModified":"2009-02-16T14:39:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/02\/fairness-doctrine-by-any-oth.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fairness Doctrine – By Any Other Name – Still Unfair"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}