Since we'll be revisiting all of the Fairness Doctrine's greatest hits as the @FCC tries to change Section 230 so @BrendanCarrFCC can regulate speech he doesn't like, perhaps a short trip down memory lane.
The Fairness Doctrine's roots grew out of the Mayflower Decision...a dispute in a comparative licensing process over the owners of a station using it to editorialize.
The @FCC, then just a few years after creation, declared in the decision that stations could not editorialize.
The @FCC, then just a few years after creation, declared in the decision that stations could not editorialize.
Broadcasters, quickly rebelled, and demanded that the @FCC clarify this position. The agency then responded with the Blue Book. @VWPickard explains the bluebook here: repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewconten…
After NAB president Justin Miller and FCC chair James Lawerence Fly battled it out, the FCC responded in 1949 with the first version of the Fairness Doctrine.
Then in 1967, the Fairness Doctrine was expanded with two additional, related, provisions the Personal Attack and Political Editorial Rules.
In 1969, SCOTUS unanimously upheld all of the rules in Red Lion v. FCC : oyez.org/cases/1968/2
In 1969, SCOTUS unanimously upheld all of the rules in Red Lion v. FCC : oyez.org/cases/1968/2
Importantly: Like the Mayflower Doctrine which proceeded it, the Red Lion decision upholding the Fairness Doctrine was tied closely to the issue of spectrum scarcity.
The @FCC under Fowler began to limit and then roll back enforcement of the Fariness Doctrine in the mid 1980s. There were three cases in the process: Meredith v. FCC, TRAC v. FCC and Syracuse v. FCC, but the agency's 1987 Fairness Report was also important.
Although the agency didn't enforce the rules, the Fairness Doctrine lingered on the books for some time. In 2000, during the presidential election, the FCC was ordered to defend the personal attack and political editorial rules.
It chose not to, and another chunk went away.
It chose not to, and another chunk went away.
In 2011, with fear that the Fairness Doctrine would live again, Congress finally removed the provision for good.
It was a boogeyman routinely invoked by the folks I worked for in talk radio, ironically while they were on the air of an @FCC licensed broadcast station.
It was a boogeyman routinely invoked by the folks I worked for in talk radio, ironically while they were on the air of an @FCC licensed broadcast station.
In 2014 the @MediaActionCtr tried to bring a complaint under the Zapple Doctrine against Milwaukee, WI Radio stations for failing to give equal time...the FCC denied the complaint and also killed the Zapple Doctrine. huffpost.com/entry/fcc-no-m…
Now, as @AjitPaiFCC and @BrendanCarrFCC are going to "revisit" Section 230, understand that the people in Congress pushing for this action have been advocating for what is, in essence, a digital Fairness Doctrine.
Although I wasn't a huge fan, there's even an argument to be made it cost @mikeofcc his job when he took a principled stand against what Pai is now, as of today, advocating the agency to do. (Commissioner Carr having drank the koolaid on 230 reform long ago)
But don't take my word for any of this. @ProfDanielLyons and I, who respectfully disagree on most telecom issues, filed a joint comment opposing FCC action on the NTIA petition. You can read it here: ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109101724…
The agency's authority to revise 230 is thin and shaky at best, but even if they can "interpret" a way to get there, there are still significant First Amendment hurdles to cross, but also resources. How is the @FCC going to manage a content enforcement regime on the internet?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
