A Fairness Doctrine for Whitehouse.gov?

Talk of a return of the Fairness Doctrine (or something similar) continues, as we see in these exchanges with attorney general nominee Eric Holder. One wonders: should the whitehouse.gov site be required to offer space for alternative viewpoints?

The original imposition of the Fairness Doctrine was based on the use of public airwaves in disseminating news and opinion. Internet sites are often consumed over those same public airwaves.

For example, we have the current 3G networks, upcoming networks built on newly-licensed spectrum, and, if the "stimulus" bill passes, new wireless deployments that are publicly subsidized. The federally-mandated DTV transition will coincide with federally sanctioned “white spaces” to be used for broadband.

And if network neutrality legislation is forthcoming, one can reasonably say that news and opinion are flowing over government-managed networks and thus should be subject to Fairness Doctrine constraints.

Whitehouse.gov is a primary means of communication from the federal government to citizens, and is a tax-funded resource. Of all places that should be subject to federal speech requirements, shouldn't it be at the top of the list?

Comments

[Robert]

The problem with this type of argument (if we are going to do THIS, then we ought to be doing THAT) is that it largely overlooks the essential evil of THIS, which in this case is the "fairness" doctrine. What's fair about restricting people's speech?

We understand that ANY government speech outlet, like whitehouse.gov, is nothing but a propaganda machine. It can't be avoided or "fixed." The problem is not lack of fairness at whitehouse.gove; the problem is the government's effort to control other speech.

[Jrod]

I thought I was the only Republican in SF?

[Neil]

Based on what I hear, the White House site has now been turned into more of a campaign style, partisan site. Maybe it should be governed by election/campaign rules. Oh I forgot, rules don't apply to Obama or the Demo left.

[Kevin]

One thing I've discovered is that they have taken all of the transcripts down, so now you cannot go to whitehouse.gov to say, look up just what Pres. Bush said in this or that speech.

I believe this was calculated.

[bb]

Keep in mind folks, they won't use the words "Fairness Doctrine". The electorate has already discounted that as failed. It will be "Local Control". The Socialist/Communists in control will not speak truth to power. This is a real threat. Get ready.

[KenB]

If judges are going to regulate my speech, they should regulate politicians' speech, too. That politicians control who gets to be a judge in some ways makes it all the more delicious. The only way for the ordinary citizen to get by is for the beast to be turned on itself so that it feeds on its own tail instead of on ordinary citizens.

[Jack]

Not Spam just a conservative dude. I have started a new blog to help get small conservative blogs more traffic. http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com if you want me to include your blog shoot me an email with your blog address at greenacreshayfarms@gmail.com and I will put up a link along with a feed to your latest postings.

[Andy]

Who, exactly, is actually pushing for a return to the Fairness Doctrine, anyway?

I think y'all conservatives are seeing boogeymen where there aren't any.

[Ken Hahn]

If we must attempt a "fairness" doctrine, let's first try it out on NPR and PBS

[Mr know it all]

Your an idiot. The fairness doctrine is not about restricting free speech. Exactly the opposite... its about giving airtime to opposing views or alternate viewpoints which may not get heard. Its about equal time for free speech. It was originally considered because a broadcast network of 62 channels decided during the kerry/bush elections to air a negative documentary on kerry on all its stations. The supreme court decided that 'broadcasting's' purpose is primarily to excersize the the peoples right to learn about opposing views.

It is intended to avoid only hearing one side.

[craig]

"It was originally considered because a broadcast network of 62 channels decided during the kerry/bush elections to air a negative documentary on kerry on all its stations"

So it would be the Feds role to force the media to give more positive coverage of Sahra Palin and less grovelling coverage of Obama?

It's not the governments role to decide what speech in contraversial, and what the "legitimate" sides are that need equal time.

I've never heard such an asinine proposal.

[Registered voter]

"The fairness doctrine is... about giving airtime to opposing views or alternate viewpoints which may not get heard. Its about equal time for free speech."

For publicly-funded media, such as NPR, PBS, and any other such entities, that makes sense. For privately-owned media, it does not. Any such requirement imposed on a privately-funded or privately-owned media entity is, by very definition, restricting free speech.

To me, free speech means the right to say anything I want, and the right to refuse to say anything that I do not want to say. Any regulation telling me that I have to say something which I do not want to say is restricting my free speech.

When freedom of speech was first added to the Constitution, the printed word (newspapers primarily) was basically the only media for the public dissemination of information. Newspapers were (and are) privately-owned. One of the key arguments for addition of the free speech right was to prevent the government from telling a newspaper (or individual) what they could or could not say or print.

With the advent of modern technology, we now include radio, TV, the internet, and other media, along with our old friend the newspaper, within the definition of vehicles for publicly disseminating information. The same free speech rights that were applied to newspapers must then apply to these new media.

If the fairness doctrine, as defined by "Mr know it all", is imposed, free speech no longer exists.

In my opinion, there exists no unfair balance in the expression of differing viewpoints. The internet is full of websites, blogs, etc of differing viewpoints. The airwaves likewise are full of viewpoints from both right-leaning and left-leaning broadcast entities. There are both right and left leaning newspapers available to all. In short, there are ample public vehicles for ALL viewpoints, readily accessible to anyone wishing to see or hear them. An argument can no longer be made that the less fortunate do not have access, because the public library is open to all, and all have access by one means or another. Even the poorest, out-lying, back-country dirt farmer with a desire to be informed has access to the information he seeks.

There simply is no unfair balance in viewpoint expression, merely a difference in the number of people who hold each viewpoint.

[Ben]

Love the blog. Finally, someone who hasn't blindly hopped onto the "Net Neutrality" bandwagon!

[Ben]

Love the blog. Finally, someone who hasn't blindly hopped onto the "Net Neutrality" bandwagon!