The fake news hubbub is a great opportunity to enact legislative control over news media

Edited

And at it's repeal in 1987 (the corollary rules were repealed in 2000, it looks like), the FCC themselves said...

The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.

But I agree with your premise, to an extent. I would not be surprised to see some (particularly from the left) push to extend more control over what can and cannot be said; not just by media, but by individuals in general. I think some control over media might be possible; I believe historically news outlets have been pro-free speech - it is their job, after all - and it is a bit of a concern. It seems that general societal pressure has been enough to force change out of companies these days though, like with Milo recently resigning from Breitbart, apparently of his own free will, because of the perceived damage him being there would do to the company. So such laws seem quite unnecessary, as companies that are distasteful to the public at large will suffer in the form of less clicks, or sales, or whatever.

But in regards to restrictions on individuals, thankfully the Supreme Court here in the United States has historically been very strong in striking down hate speech laws and the like. With an 8-1 ruling in favor of the absolute bigots and assholes of the Westboro Baptist Church (giving all good Christians a bad name since 1955) in the Snyder v. Phelps case, as recent as 2011. It was doubly useful because not only was it not a criminal act (not in dispute), but it also prevented one from being the subject of a civil tort for emotional distress. From the ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts -

"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."

The lone dissenter, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote in his opinion -

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case." He concluded, "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."

To me, this dissenting opinion is a good intention that helps to pave the road to hell, or more specifically, tyranny. Who decides what is brutal? Who decides what is verbal assault? Is it an alleged victim? A police officer? A bureaucrat in some far away city? A local bureaucrat? These are serious questions that do not have easy answers; and almost every answer you will find will not be aligned with the views of the majority of the population; and if you believe in democratic process (I don't, but that's another matter), then going against the will of the majority is tantamount to betraying your most sacred principles.

I read a bit about the Fairness Doctrine a bit from your link, and absolutely could never agree with such a law, and I'm glad it's gone. It's a silly rule that forces action on to people that qualify as "news media" against their will. In the modern age, what qualifies as "news media"? If I run a blog that discusses current events and gives my input on them, is that "news media"? What if I start to hire people who also write for me? And at it's repeal in 1987 (the corollary rules were repealed in 2000, it looks like), the FCC themselves said... >The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists. But I agree with your premise, to an extent. I would not be surprised to see some (particularly from the left) push to extend more control over what can and cannot be said; not just by media, but by individuals in general. I think some control over media might be possible; I believe historically news outlets have been pro-free speech - it is their job, after all - and it is a bit of a concern. It seems that general societal pressure has been enough to force change out of companies these days though, like with Milo recently resigning from _Breitbart_, apparently of his own free will, because of the perceived damage him being there would do to the company. So such laws seem quite unnecessary, as companies that are distasteful to the public at large will suffer in the form of less clicks, or sales, or whatever. But in regards to restrictions on individuals, thankfully the Supreme Court here in the United States has historically been very strong in striking down hate speech laws and the like. With an 8-1 ruling in favor of the absolute bigots and assholes of the _Westboro Baptist Church_ (giving all good Christians a bad name since 1955) in the _Snyder v. Phelps_ case, as recent as 2011. It was doubly useful because not only was it not a criminal act (not in dispute), but it also prevented one from being the subject of a civil tort for emotional distress. From the ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts - >"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous." The lone dissenter, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote in his opinion - >"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case." He concluded, "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner." To me, this dissenting opinion is a good intention that helps to pave the road to hell, or more specifically, tyranny. Who decides what is brutal? Who decides what is verbal assault? Is it an alleged victim? A police officer? A bureaucrat in some far away city? A local bureaucrat? These are serious questions that do not have easy answers; and almost every answer you will find will not be aligned with the views of the majority of the population; and if you believe in democratic process (I don't, but that's another matter), then going against the will of the majority is tantamount to betraying your most sacred principles.

[–] jidlaph 1 points (+1|-0)

It's whatever. Important news left the MSM a long time ago. It's all online these days.

The fake news hubbub is a great opportunity to enact legislative control over news media

2 comments

/s/Whatever