Atlas Shrugs: Freedom Fighters vs. The New Fascists

Broadcaster Freedom Act to Outlaw "Fairness Doctrine" Introduced in House and Senate; Find list of sponsors here
July 13, 2007

The Broadcaster Freedom Act, to outlaw return of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, has now been introduced in the House and Senate. Check here to see if your members of Congress are co-sponsors. hat tip AIM

DEMOCRATS BLOCK COLEMAN AMENDMENT TO PREVENT REINSTATEMENT OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Washington, D.C. – On the Senator floor today, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) attempted to offer an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, which would require the government to monitor political discourse on American’s airwaves and regulate the expression of political views. Rather than allowing the measure to move forward to a full debate, the amendment was objected to by Senate Democrats. Leading the Democrats objection was Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), who insisted government should have a direct hand in regulating political ideas to ensure an equal balance.

“Rather than allowing a full and complete debate on the amendment, Senate Democrats prematurely chose not to allow it to move forward. After blocking the ability of the entire Senate to debate this measure, they suddenly proceeded to rationalize the Fairness Doctrine on the Senator floor. It’s quite clear that the reinstitution of the misleadingly-named Fairness Doctrine would threaten our constitutional right to free speech and fundamentally undermine the workings of our free market democracy,” said Coleman. “In this day and age, reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine is not about equal balance, as its supporters claim, it is about muzzling broadcasters. I believe it is a dangerous proposition for the government to be in the business of rationing free speech and determining what is fair. At the very least, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should have allowed this amendment to be debated.”

In 1949, the FCC established the Fairness Doctrine requiring broadcasters to provide fair and balanced public affairs related programming. In 1985, the FCC determined that the Fairness Doctrine was no longer necessary due to the emergence of a “multiplicity of voices in the marketplace.” The FCC was also of the view that the Fairness Doctrine may have violated the First Amendment. In 1987, following a Federal Court’s ruling that the FCC was not statutorily bound to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Also that same year President Reagan vetoed Fairness Doctrine legislation. Nevertheless, in recent weeks several prominent Democrats have been voicing a desire to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

“Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine talk radio has flourished, thanks to free speech and free market ideals. Americans have not only been witness to, but have directly benefited from, the information revolution that has changed our daily lives. Cable television, radio and the Internet are all in their own ways bringing forward a multiplicity of information and view points. Despite today’s efforts by my opponents, I will continue working to ensure our free speech and free market principles are protected by fighting against reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine,” Coleman added.

Co-sponsors of the amendment include Senators Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Larry Craig (R-ID), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Cornyn (R-TX), John McCain (R-AZ), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Judd Gregg (R-NH), John Ensign (R-NV), Bob Bennett (R-UT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Bob Corker (R-TN).

UPDATE: READ A TRANSCRIPT OF AN EXCHANGE ON THE SENATE FLOOR! CLICK LINK BELOW! Yo, dhmmicrats, this aint what the American people voted for in November. Trust me on this.

{09:57:52 NSP} (MR. LEVIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. LEVIN: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT AFTER THE SENATOR FROM

MINNESOTA

HAS COMPLETED, SENATOR BILL NELSON BE RECOGNIZED FOR

UP TO 20 MINUTES SPEAKING ON THE PENDING AMENDMENT.

09:57:59 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?

WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE SENATOR FROM

MINNESOTA

{09:58:07 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT I ASK THE PENDING AMENDMENT BE SET

ASIDE SO I CAN OFFER AN AMENDMENT.

{09:58:12 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?

THE OBJECTION IS HEARD.

{09:58:19 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT AN OBJECTION

HAS BEEN RAISED. I INTENDED TO OFFER AMENDMENT 2189. IT'S AT

THE DESK, THE COLEMAN-DeMINT-THUNE-INHOFE AMENDMENT PROHIBITING

THE F.C.C. FROM REINSTATING THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. LET ME JUST

TELL A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT WE INTEND TO DO. I'M NOT ASKING IF A

VOTE HERE. I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANY KIND OF LIMITATIONS IN TIME.

I JUST WANT AN AMENDMENT TO BE PUT IN THE QUEUE AN AMENDMENT,

{09:58:50} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

AN ISSUE WHICH THE HOUSE DEALT WITH AND IN THE HOUSE THIS BILL

PASSED WITH OVER 300 VOTES IN FAVOR AND 113 VOTES BY THE

DEMOCRATS, 309-1 15 AND IT WOULD SAY THAT THE F.C.C. WOULD NOT

BE ABLE TO REINSTATE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. IT SAYS, AND I'LL

READ "THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE

ANY RULE, REGULATION, POLICY, DOCTRINE OR OTHER REQUIREMENT

THAT HAS THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF REINSTATING OR PROMULGATING

09:59:27} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE REQUIREMENT THAT BROADCASTERS,

INCLUDING THE ARMS FORCES NETWORK PRESENT OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE COMMONLY REFERRED

TO AS THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE." FIRST, MR. PRESIDENT, THERE IS

NOTHING "FAIR" ABOUT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. SOME OF MY

COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE SAID IT IS TIME

TO REINSTATE THE

{END: 2007/07/13 TIME: 10-00 , Fri. 110th SENATE, FIRST SESSION}

{ NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS.}

TROOPS PUTTING THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE AND PART OF WHAT WE

PROTECT IN THIS COUNTRY IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT, FREEDOM OF

SPEECH. THE FAIRNESS AMENDMENT IS A RELIC OF A BYGONE PAST AND

TOSSED ON THE AROUND HEAP OF HISTORY IN 1947, IT WAS

IT PLACE

FROM 1949 TO 1987. IN EFFECT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MONITORS

{10:00:32} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

WHAT IS SAID ON THE AIRWAYS AND THEN THEY MUST PRESENT

BALANCE.n THE EFFECT WAS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THAT. MUCH

DIFFERENT THAN THAT. IN FACT, IT STIFLED SPEECH F. YOU'RE A

BROADCASTER, YOU OWNED A STATION AND YOU'RE SUBJECT TO FINE,

SOME KIND OF PENALTY IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE THE KIND OF BALANCE

THAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS YOU MUST PROVIDE, THEN YOU RUN THE

RISK OF SOME KIND OF PENALTY. YOU MAY WELL CHOOSE -- AND, IN

FACT HISTORY SHOWED WHAT HAPPENED -- YOU MAY WELL CHOOSE SIMPLY

TO PLAY COUNTRY MUSIC. AND I LOVE COUNTRY MUSIC. BUT I ALSO

LOVE FREE SPEECH. AND WE DON'T WANT TO

PUT IN PLACE

ANYTHING

{10:01:08} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

THAT STIFLES FREE SPEECH. WE'VE MOVED FROM 1949, WHEN YOU HAD A

FEW TV STATIONS AND -- AND THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GOT CAME

FROM A RELATIVELY FEW SOURCES -- TO A WORLD TODAY IN WHICH WE

HAVE BROADBAND AND HIGH-SPEED INTERNET AND SATELLITES AND BLOGS

AND A WHOLE RANGE OF INFORMATION. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.

THAT'S A GOOD THING. IN THE END, WE IN THIS BODY HAVE TO

RESPOND, HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE AND WE WANT

AN INFORMED AND EDUCATED CITIZENSHIP. AND WE WANT THEM TO GET

DIVERSE VIEWS. AND THE REALITY,

MR.

PRESIDENT

PART WHY THIS

{10:01:40} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

ISSUE EVEN COMES UP BECAUSE OF CONCERNS FROM MY FRIENDS ON THE

OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT TALK RADIO SHOW IS DOMINATED BY

CONSERVATIVES. ONE MAY ARGUE THAT PERHAPS BROADCAST JOURNALISM

MAY BE DOMINATED BY LIBERALS. THERE HAVE BEEN STUDIES THAT HAVE

SHOWN THAT. BUT FOR US, WE SHOULDN'T CARE IN TERMS OF WHETHER

IT'S DOMINATED AND AT THE RESPONSE OF THE GOVERNMENT COMING IN

AND TRY TO SOMEHOW MEASURE OR REGULATE.

10:02:12 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

{10:02:14 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: I WILL YIELD.

{10:02:18 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: I WOULD ASK THE SENATOR IF HE BELIEVES IN THE

INTEREST OF AN EDUCATED ELECTORATE, WHETHER HE THINKS AMERICANS

COULD HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY, A KIND OF FAIR AND BALANCED

APPROACH WHEN IT COMES TO INFORMATION?

{10:02:27 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT AMERICANS

SHOULD HEAR BOTH SI SIDES. ABSOLUTELY. BUT I BELIEVE --

STRONGLY BELIEVE -- THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE

POSITION OF DECIDING AND DICTATING -- NOW HERE IS THE OTHER

SIDE. THERE IS -- WE HAVE IN THE -- IN THE WORLD OF

COMMUNICATIONS TODAY, AMERICANS HAVE ALL SORTS OF OPTIONS TO

HEAR THE OTHER SIDE. ALL THEY GOT TO DO IS TURN A DIAL. ALL

THEY'VE GOT TO DO IS PUSH A BUTTON. ALL THEY'VE GOT TO DO IS

PRESS A MOUSE. AND THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY.

{10:02:56 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A FURTHER QUESTION?

{10:03:00 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD TO A QUESTION.

{10:03:02 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: DOES THE SENATOR CONCEDE THAT THE AIRWAVES BELONG

TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

{10:03:06 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I CONCEDE THE AIRWAVES BELONG TO

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

{10:03:09 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A FURTHER QUESTION?

{10:03:12 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD FOR A FURTHER QUESTION.

10:03:14 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: WOULD THE SENATOR CONCEDE THAT THOSE WHO USE THE

PEOPLE'S AIRWAVES TO MAKE A PROFIT HAVE TO DO IT WITH A LICENSE FROM OUR GOVERNMENT?

{10:03:22 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I -- I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT WE

HAVE A LICENSING PROCESS.

{10:03:24 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A FURTHER QUESTION?

{10:03:27 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL YIELD AND I WOULD YIELD FOR

THE SENATOR FROM

ILLINOIS

TO PRESENT THE ENTIRE QUESTION SO

THAT I CAN CONTINUE WITH -- WITH MAINTAINING THE FLOOR AND

DISCUSSING AMENDMENT. MR. DURBIN CLOU. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO

DELAY THE SENATOR FROM

MINNESOTA

. I MR. CONCEDE THAT SINCE THE

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE UNDER THE REGULAR REAGAN

ADMINISTRATION, THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN BROADCAST JOURNAL SCPISM

IN MANY OTHER ASPECTS OF JOURNALISM. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE

-- I HAVEN'T SEEN THE SENATOR'S AMENDMENT. I SENSE I KNOW WHAT

IT MIGHT BE LEADING TO. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE

{10:03:57} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

PREMISE IS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY AGREE ON. THE AIRWAVES BELONG

TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THOSE WHO PROFIT FROM THEM DO BY

PERMISSION OF THE PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR GOVERNMENT. AND THAT

THOSE WHO USE THOSE AIRWAVES SHOULD DO IT RESPONSIBLY AND

SHOULD SEEK TO PROVIDE BOTH POINTS OF VIEW, BOTH SIDES OF THE

STORY SO THAT AMERICANS CAN REACH A DECISION. I'D ASK THE

SENATOR FROM

MINNESOTA

IF HE DISAGREES WITH ANY OF THOSE

THINGS.

{10:04:22 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: HERE'S WHAT I -- MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD SAY TO MY

-- TO MY LEARNED COLLEAGUE FROM

ILLINOIS

, HERE'S OUR POINT OF

DISAGREEMENT. THERE IS NO QUESTION, IN FACT, THAT THERE'S A

LICENSING PR PROCESS. I WAS A FORMER MAYOR. WE LICENSED A

LOT

OF THINGS. BUT I THINK ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES AT STAKE IS

THAT WE DON'T LICENSE AND MEASURE CONTENT WHEN IT COMES TO

SPEECH. AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. THAT, IN FACT, BECAUSE OF THE

MULTIPLICITY OF -- OF COMMUNICATIONS OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE

TO CITIZENS TODAY -- AS I SAID BEFORE, BLOGZ AND INTERNET AND

{10:04:53} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

BROADBAND AND SATELLITE WHICH WE DIDN'T HAVE -- DIDN'T HAVE 20,

30 YEARS AGO. WHERE MY OBJECTION LIES AND THE IMPORTANCE OF

THIS AMENDMENT IS TO SAY GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE MONITORING AND

REGULATING CONTENT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT OBSCENITY. THERE

ARE THINGS THAT THE SENATOR FROM

ILLINOIS

THAT GOVERNMENT HAS

AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO -- TO MONITOR OR TO DEAL WITH. BUT WE'RE

NOT TALKING ABOUT -- WHEN WE GET TO CONTENT, AND THAT'S MY

CONCERN, THAT THOSE WHO HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE "BRING BACK THE

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE," ARE BRINGING IT BACK. AND THE CRY THEN IS

TO REGULATE CONTENT AND THAT'S WHAT I OBJECT TO.

{10:05:31 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: IF I COULD ASK THE SENATOR TO YIELD FURTHER TO A

QUESTION. THERE WAS A RECENT EPISODE WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS

WHERE THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING CORPORATION TOOK A SHOW OFF THE

AIR BY BILL MOYERS AND WANTED TO REPLACE IT WITH A SHOW OFFERED

BY THE "

WALL STREET

JOURNAL." AND THERE WERE COMPLAINTS

OBVIOUSLY THAT MR. MOYERS WAS TOO LIBERAL IN CONTENT. DOES THE

SENATOR FROM

MINNESOTA

BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS A FAIR OUTCOME OR

WOULD HE CONCEDE IT WOULD BE A FAIRER OUTCOME TO ALLOW THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE TO WATCH BOTH SHOWS BY THE "

WALL STREET

{10:06:01} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

JOURNAL" AND BILL MOYERS AND TO HEAR BOTH POINTS OF VIEW AND

DECIDE WHAT THEY AGREED WITH?

10:06:07 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, TWO OBSERVATIONS. FIRST, I'M

THRILLED THAT I'M HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE SENATOR FROM

ILLINOIS

. AND -- AND MY CONCERN IS, I JUST OFFERED AN AMENDMENT

WHICH WAS OBJECTED TO. I BELIEVE HAD THE AMENDMENT NOT BEEN

OBJECTED TO, WE WOULD HAVE TIME FOR A FULL DEBATE ON THIS

AMENDMENT. AND THE SENATOR FROM

ILLINOIS

, I KNOW THE SENATOR

FROM

SOUTH DAKOTA

HAS A GREAT INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE. I PRESUME

THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, THE SENATOR

FROM

MASSACHUSETTS

, JUNIOR SENATOR FROM

MASSACHUSETTS

, HAS

RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE FAIRNESS -- THAT WE SHOULD REINSTATE

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, HAS SAID THAT PUBLICLY. I WOULD LOVE TO

{10:06:37} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

HAVE THIS DE DEBATE. AND YET I STAND HERE OFFERING AN

AMENDMENT, IT'S OBJECTED TO WHICH WILL LIMIT THE DEBATE AND SO

WE'RE HAVING THIS -- THIS COLLOQUY. AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND

WILL RESPOND. BUT I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE

AISLE WILL NOT GIVE US AN

OPPORTUNITY

FOR A FULL DEBATE ON THIS

ISSUE. IN FACT, I -- I THINK -- I WANT ALL SIDES TO BE HEARD.

WHAT I DON'T WANT AND WHERE THE FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT IS FOR

THE REGULATORY POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO SIT IN JUDGMENT AS BIG

BROTHER, TO OVERSEE AND TAKE STOCK WITH PENCIL AND PAD AND TAKE

{10:07:10} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

NOTES, WELL, WE HAD SHAWN HANNETY OVER HERE AND NOW WE'VE GOT

TO GET SOMEBODY ON THE LEFT OVER THERE. BALANCE SHOULD BE HEARD

BUT WE HAVE A MARKETPLACE THAT PROVIDES THAT

OPPORTUNITY

. WE

HAVE FOLKS WHO SUPPORT THE SENATOR FROM

ILLINOIS

'S PERSPECTIVE.

WE HAVE FOLKS WHO SUPPORT MY PERSPECTIVE. SOMETIMES WE'RE THE

SAME. BUT FOR GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE, THAT'S THE CONCERN. THAT'S

WHY THE -- THAT'S WHY THE F.C.C. GOT RID OF THE FAIRNESS

DOCTRINE IN 1987. IT'S WHY THE SUPREME COURT HAS RAISED

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. I DON'T

THINK IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL. WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT QUESTION.

{10:07:44 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

10:07:47 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: I WOULD YIELD TO ONE FURTHER QUESTION.

{10:07:49 NSP} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. DURBIN: I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU BUT I REALLY WISH THAT

THROUGH THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE OR THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE OF

JURISDICTION, WE CAN REALLY GET INTO THIS QUESTION. BUT THE

SENATOR IS ARGUING THAT THE MARKETPLACE CAN PROVIDE. WHAT IS

THE SENATOR'S RESPONSE IF THE MARKETPLACE FAILS TO PROVIDE?

WHAT IS THE MARKETPLACE DOES NOT PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES TO HEAR

BOTH POINTS OF VIEW?

SINCE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SEEKING THE LICENSES ARE USING

AMERICA

'S AIRWAVES, DOES THE GOVERNMENT, SPEAKING FOR THE

PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY, HAVE ANY INTEREST AT THAT POINT TO STEP

IN AND MAKE SURE THERE IS A DESPAIR BALANCED APPROACH TO THE --

{10:08:20} (MR. DURBIN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

A FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH TO THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE?

{10:08:26 NSP} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

MR. COLEMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I'LL RESPOND TO THE FINAL QUESTION

HERE. VERY CLEAR DISAGREEMENT HERE. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT --

DOES NOT -- HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REGULATE CONTENT OF

SPEECH. THAT'S WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS ABOUT. IT'S EXACTLY

WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS ABOUT. GOVERNMENT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO

BE REGULATING CONTENT. AND IN A TIME IN 1949 WHEN YOU HAD THREE

NETWORK TV STATIONS, BASICALLY, WHEN HAD YOU LIMITED CHANNELS

OF COMMUNICATION, I PRESUME THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN ON

THE PART OF SOME THAT, IN FACT, GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STEP IN AND

{10:08:58} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

ENSURE BALANCE. BUT NOW WE'RE IN 2007. WE'RE AT A TIME WHERE

WE'VE GOT 20,000, YOU KNOW, OPPORTUNITIES FOR STATIONS AND

SATELLITE, WHERE YOU HAVE CABLE, YOU HAVE BLOGS, YOU HAVE A

WHOLE

RANGE

OF INFORMATION. I THINK IT WOULD BE -- I -- I CAN'T

EVEN CONCEIVE -- I CAN'T EVEN CONCEIVE THAT THE MARKET COULD

NOT PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIFFERING POSITIONS BECAUSE IT

DOES. AND IN THE END -- IN THE END, CONSUMERS ALSO HAVE A RIGHT

BASED ON THE MARKET TO MAKE CHOICES. AND SO IF THEY MAKE

CHOICES THAT SAY WE WANT TO HEAR MORE OF ONE SIDE THAN THE

{10:09:32} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

OTHER, THAT'S OK OKAY. AND I THINK IT'S VERY DANGEROUS, I SAY

TO MY -- MY FRIEND FROM

ILLINOIS

, I THINK IT'S VERY DANGEROUS

FOR GOVERNMENT TO BE IN THE POSITION OF DECIDING WHAT'S FAIR

AND BALANCED. BECAUSE AS WE SEE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE,

OFTENTIMES AMONGST OURSELVES, LEARNED -- HOPEFULLY LEARNED

INDIVIDUALS WHO'VE THE GREAT HUMBLE

OPPORTUNITY

TO SERVE IN THE

U.S.

SENATE, WE HAVE DIFFERENCES AS TO WHAT IS FAIR AND

BALANCED. AND SO THE REASON I THINK WE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT

IS THAT WE GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF -- OUT OF THE -- THE

MEASURING, CONTROLLING, DICTATING, REGULATING CONTENT AND

{10:10:09} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

THAT'S MY CONCERN. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT. AND

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE DEBATE WITH THE SENATOR FROM

ILLINOIS

I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD SIMPLY HAVE BEEN

PUT IN THE QUEUE, WOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD. I THINK AMERICANS LOVE

A FAIR FIGHT. I THINK AMERICANS LOVE THIS KIND OF DIALOGUE.

THERE'S NOTHING FAIR ABOUT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. THERE'S

NOTHING FAIR -- IF THE INTENT HERE REALLY -- AND I THINK WE'VE

GOT TO LAY IT ON THE TABLE -- THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO KIND OF

SHUT DOWN OR TO LIMIT THE -- THE, YOU KNOW, CONSERVATIVE TALK

{10:10:41} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

RADIO. THAT'S WHERE THE CONCERN IS. AND YET, AS I SAID BEFORE,

ONE CAN RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT BALANCE IN THE PRINT MEDIA, ONE

CAN RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT BALANCE IN THE BROADCAST MEDIA. BUT I

DON'T THINK IT'S THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TO BE SITTING THERE

LISTENING AND THEN WEIGHING, DECIDING WHAT'S FAIR AND BALANCED

AND THEN REQUIRING UNDER PERSONALITY A BROADCASTER TO SAY YOU

HAVE -- PENALTY A BROADCASTER TO SAY YOU HAVE TO PRESENT THIS

OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW. BECAUSE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, MR.

PRESIDENT -- AND HISTORY HAS SHOWN THIS -- BROADCASTERS ARE

{10:11:13} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

SIMPLY GOING TO SAY LET'S DO SOMETHING ELSE WHY BE IN THAT

POSITION THAT THERE'S A LINE THAT MAYBE CROSSED AND I DON'T

KNOW WHAT THAT LINE IS?

THAT LINE MAY CHANGE DEPEND ON WHO'S SITTING

THERE

AN F.C.C.

CHAIR. AND AGAIN, AS I SAID BEFORE, BEYOND THE MARKET PRINCIPLE

-- EXCUSE ME, FIRST AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES, THERE ARE MARKET

PRINCIPLES. TALK RADIO HAS FLOURISHED BECAUSE THE MARKET, THE

CONSUMER SAYS I WANT TO LISTEN. AND THEY HAVE THEN BEEN GIVEN

CHOICES. THEY CAN SIMPLY TURN OFF THE THE DIAL, TURN -- TURN

{10:11:45} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

OFF THE DIAL, TURN THE -- SHUT OFF THE RADIO. IT HAS

FLOURISHED. AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF DEMAND, NOT BECAUSE OF THE

GOVERNMENT. NOT BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT COMMAND, NOT BECAUSE OF

GOVERNMENT CONTROL. WE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT REGULATING

CONTENT. LIKE NEVER BEFORE, AMERICANS HAVE A WEALTH OF

INFORMATION, A VIEWPOINT THANKS TO CABLE, TELEVISION, RADIO AND

INTERNET. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND LET IT FLOURISH. JOHN

KENNEDY STATED, "WE ARE NOT AFRAID TO ENTRUST THE AMERICAN

PEOPLE WITH UNPLEASANT FACTS, FOREIGN IDEAS, ALIEN PHILOSOPHIES

AND COMPETITIVE VALUES. FOR A NATION THAT IS AFRAID TO LET'S

{10:12:16} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

ITS PEOPLE JUDGE THE TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD IN AN OPEN MARKET IS A

NATION THAT IS AFRAID OF ITS PEOPLE." MR. PRESIDENT, I'M NOT

AFRAID OF OF -- OF THE PEOPLE. I'M NOT AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE

HAVING ACCESS TO THE IN INFORMATION, IDEAS THAT THEY WANT TO

HAVE ACCESS TO. BUT I AM AFRAID OF THE GOVERNMENT STEPPING IN

AND REGULATING CONTENT. WE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT. THAT'S THE

UNDERPINNING, THE FOUNDATION OF ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS. THE

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE FLIES IN THE FACE OF THAT. IT WAS REJECTED.

IT WAS REJECTED IN 1987. THE IDEA OF BRINGING IT BACK TODAY IS

A VERY, VERY BAD IDEA. THIS AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES THE

{10:12:49} (MR. COLEMAN) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

ARMED FORCES NETWORK. OUR FOLKS ARE OUT THERE ON THE FRONT LINE

FIGHTING. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO TUNE INTO WHATEVER THEY WANT

TO TUNE INTO AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE THINKING THAT BACK HOME

SOMEONE AT THE F.C.C. IS LISTENING AND MONITORING AND DECIDING

WHAT IS FAIR AND WHAT IS BALANCED. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. LET

THE MARKET DECIDE. LET THE FIRST AMENDMENT FLOURISH. MR.

PRESIDENT, WITH THAT, I YIELD THE FLOOR.

10:13:18 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM

FLORIDA

. MR. NELSON:

MR. PRESIDENT?

Comments

folks:

now is a very good time to be stockpiling various necessities, before prices spikes on the same.

john jay

Posted by: john jay | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 03:07 PM

Where is Senator Leiberman ? I expect him to co-sponcer the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
Joe ! JOE !

Posted by: wxjames | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 03:19 PM

'Fairness?' What kind of 'fairness?' Red ratbag propaganda?
In just about all western nations today the news is cooked by far left commie scum, in France some 97%, in Germany 94% and in Australia, where I live, it is the same.

Sanity and reason have long gone. Instead we have politically correct halfwits and multiculti-diversity-religion force fed on everybody.

It is a disaster.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 03:29 PM

Sorry, I know it's off topic, but I want to thank Atlas for exposing the Jihadi YouTube user who was happy about the death of Daniel Pearl. Now he is banned, in no small part to Atlas. You are a role model, and a hero. Thank you!

Also check out the new blog dealing with anti-semitism, and anti-zionism on college campuses:

http://antiracistblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Bomb Bomb Iran | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 04:10 PM

sheik yer'mami, well said...

The left is just SO pissed at talk radio, basically because they can't compete and they know it... So, instead, lets legislate it out of existance.

Any 'lefty' who says otherwise is flat out lying. Call 'em on it every time...

Posted by: tazzerman2000 | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 04:25 PM

FAIRNESS?

How DARE THEY!

This needs some serious action.

Posted by: Rebel Radius | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 04:37 PM

friends:

also, probably a good time for a "refresher" read of f. nietzsche's "the origin of good and evil."

you may need it to fully comprehend the nature of the new truths which shall prevail when government takes a more active hand in regulating public comment on the issues of the day.

when the founders adopted the second amendment to the u.s. constitution, they had well in mind the history of england, and measures of the catholic controlled crown to limit the access of protestants to arms, and measures of the protestant controlled crown to limit the access of catholics to arms, all fully described in blackstone's commentaries to the laws of england.

such was "regulation of political ideas" in the history of england, and judging by the next following post in atlasshrugs, such may be the regulations of political ideas in england in the not too distant future.

ah, "ferment," as the historians describe it.

p.s. don't forget to lay in the basics, a good idea is to include service rounds as previously adopted by the u.s. military. best to be ammunition compatible.

Posted by: john jay | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 07:56 PM

As I said before, if this idiocy comes to be law again, it will end up biting the asses that fed it. Imagine the NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, CNN, CBS, PBS, et al ALL having to give "equal time" to opposite points of view. If the Democrats want "equal time" on radio, fine, all they have to do is find someone with something worth saying and someone that will listen. So far, that hasn't been possible. I would LOVE to see the NYT actually have to print something other than the "company line".

Posted by: clyde | Friday, July 13, 2007 at 08:38 PM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.