Michelle Malkin » Fairness Doctrine on the Senate floor; Update: DeMint bill passes 87-11, but so does Durbin’s

Fairness Doctrine on the Senate floor; Update: DeMint bill passes 87-11, but so does Durbin’s

By Michelle Malkin • February 26, 2009 02:05 PM

Scroll for updates…

From Sen. Jim DeMint’s office:

Today, at 2pm, the Senate will vote on two amendments with respect to the Fairness Doctrine.

- The DeMint amendment (Broadcaster Freedom Act) would ban the Fairness Doctrine.

- The amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) would achieve the same goals of the Fairness Doctrine through backdoor FCC regulations. His legislation forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership,” an attempt to dismantle successful syndicated radio programs. The Durbin amendment would hurt small, local radio stations who depend on popular syndicated programming for listeners and revenue.

Here’s an article that seems to get at what Durbin’s amendment is about.

Senator DeMint will encourage all senators to OPPOSE the Durbin Amendment.

The Duct Tape Brigade is out there in full force.

Eternal vigilance is required.

***

Update 1:30pm Eastern. The DeMint amendment passes 87-11, but as Sen. DeMint Tweets: “Our ban on Fairness Doctrine passes 87-11. But fight not over, Dems have attacked from back door on media ownership, localism.”

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#634709

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

On February 26th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, lgm said:

Speaking of not having any credibility…

Scare tactics — Republican specialty.

Have you been listening to Da One? He keeps claiming that he’s the agent of Hope’n'Change, but everything else out of his mouth is about how bad things will be if we don’t toe his line. Please.

Hope is not a plan; not all change is good. The resistance is here; the resistance is now. RESIST!!!!

ECS.
#634712

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:17 pm, groundhunter said:

We have only begun this madness. The more they get away with raping America the more they will do it. No stopping them now. Know of a nice island some place, warm wiith good fishing?
#634720

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, Salt said:

On February 26th, 2009 at 4:45 pm, undresiege said:

Good points except you can’t get carried away with the NO LAW business. There are constitutionally permissible ways to restrict free speech. Granted, none of them apply on this issue.

I am guessing that you might be thinking of the person who cries “Fire” in a crowded theater scenario. Or perhaps you are referring to slander laws.

However, it could be argued that what is punishable there is not the speech but the consequences of that speech. It’s not as though you are prohibited from ever speaking in a movie theater (unfortunately).

Not only do I not think there will ever be a fairness doctrine,

…you do realize, I hope, that there previously was a fairness doctrine. It’s not so much a question of whether or not Congress can pass such a thing. It’s happened once already. It is about whether or not it will return.

Just because some left of left congressional leaders want it, doesn’t mean it will ever be passed.

Are Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid part of the “left of left” that you mention? They should be and they are the leaders in the legislature.

I agree the situation should be monitored, but the “sky is not falling”.

Not yet, but it won’t be from a lack of trying. Liberals scoffed at the notion until they took over the majority and today we see Sen. Durbin aiming to try the backdoor approach.
#634721

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

Know of a nice island some place, warm wiith good fishing?

Caymans. Friendly tax-wise too.
#634726

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:29 pm, JusDreamin said:

englishqueen01 said:

Excellent points
#634742

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

I guess I’m going to have to find out about these “citizens committees”, if they get formed, and how to go about getting on one here.
#634759

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:56 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm, Hannibal said:

Please “Red”, there may be young people on this thread. We do not link “back door” with Log Cabin Republicans or with Barney Frank’s bio on MySpace. We must keep the discourse on a higher level for the children.

My apologies for being offensive to any young readers. I didn’t think it was any worse than the use of “BOHICA”, which has been spelled out by others.

Or “We’re Scr*w*d” which has been used by our hostess.

If readers are old enough to be here and understand how the Democratic Socialists are raping our country, they’re probably old enough to handle these other terms.

That said, I’ll still try to do better.
#634762

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:58 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On February 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

I guess I’m going to have to find out about these “citizens committees”, if they get formed, and how to go about getting on one here.

Good for you. The Democratic Socialists are counting on liberals being more socially active than conservatives. It’s worked their way on school boards, so they are expecting it to work their way on this local enforcement of the “fairness doctrine”.
#634780

On February 26th, 2009 at 6:14 pm, undresiege said:

I am guessing that you might be thinking of the person who cries “Fire” in a crowded theater scenario. Or perhaps you are referring to slander laws.

However, it could be argued that what is punishable there is not the speech but the consequences of that speech. It’s not as though you are prohibited from ever speaking in a movie theater (unfortunately).

True. I’m also meaning verbal or written threats against say, a public official. Also, you aren’t even permitted to enter a conspriacy to commit certain crimes. My buddy couldn’t solicit me to “off” his boss, or wife, and I’d be prosecuted to further plan or conspire. The words alone are enough. It all goes back to your point in a way, and I see what you’re saying, but I think EQueen was just a tad broad.

…you do realize, I hope, that there previously was a fairness doctrine. It’s not so much a question of whether or not Congress can pass such a thing. It’s happened once already. It is about whether or not it will return.

I remember. I just think that since political speech is so prevalent now, particularly on talk radio as a major revenue generating business, it well never have any legs out of early planning stages. I just think times are different now. I’m a liberal, and i prefer to listen to conservative talk radio over liberal talk radio, though for reasons different from you. We are both entertained in our own ways. There are more listeners like us on both sides, and those listeners add up to major dollars.

Are Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid part of the “left of left” that you mention? They should be and they are the leaders in the legislature.

Absolutely. However, I think most house and senate democrats are to the right of those two. You may differ, but I certainly think our president is to the right of those two.

Not yet, but it won’t be from a lack of trying. Liberals scoffed at the notion until they took over the majority and today we see Sen. Durbin aiming to try the backdoor approach.

I know, but I don’t think it will lead anywhere.
Look, as a liberal, I’ll freely admit that most of the MSM tilts to the left right now. Only FoxNews tilts to the right as far as MSM goes. The internet can feed any and all political tastes.

Yes, rightwing radio controls the airwaves, but that’s because the free market allows it- again audiences in the left right and center are part of that.
I just saying that the rightwing voice is nothing to fear. The most liberal president since Johnson(depending on your definition), just got elected fairly easily despite the mobilized efforts of the conservative voice.

Some left of left liberals are being greedy and vindictive in trying to stifle rightwing speech. If you’re into conspriacy theories, I think some are just bringing this up as a tool of distraction to feed the conservatives wimply left jabs before going for the overhand right in 2010, and 2012, and beyond. I think the BC issue is a similar purposeful distraction, but that’s obviously another issue.

If I’m wrong in the months or years ahead, I’ll be very disappointed in my party, and may switch independent. I’m strongly against the Fairness Doctrine on overy level or concept.
#634781

On February 26th, 2009 at 6:14 pm, graysonret said:

What the dems don’t comprehend is that this “fairness doctrine” will come back to haunt them. Eventually, and it will happen, the other party gains control. When that happens, the so-called “fairness doctrine” will be used against them, with much glee by the conservatives. The liberals can’t complain; they passed it. They need to think about that. History will be their teacher.
#634787

On February 26th, 2009 at 6:20 pm, mchristian said:

I am also opposed to the bill to which these amendments are attached that propose to give DC a voting member of the House, to which they are not entitled without passage of a constitutional amendment.
#634792

On February 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

They’re about to bring back the “Guns that look mean” ban, too. Dagnabit! I don’t have the spare change right now to buy one before they pass it!
#634821

On February 26th, 2009 at 7:09 pm, graysonret said:

Mchristian, the new “rule” governing the Constitution, since the ’30s, is that if it agrees with the congress, it’s defended quite strongly. If it disagrees with the congress, it is ignored. The supreme court and the federal courts are too busy legislating to concern themselves with something that might be unconstitutional. And, a lot of Americans don’t care; they look to the entitlements.
#634838

On February 26th, 2009 at 7:25 pm, Jvette said:

RogerCfromSD said:

lgm, really, could you be a bigger jackass if you tried?

Actually, I think lgm does try and if, as they say, practice makes perfect, he should be darn close to perfect by now.
#634872

On February 26th, 2009 at 8:38 pm, Joy said:

Ed said

He won’t be satisfied for Euro style pseudo-socialism, I’m afraid.

That’s what bothers me when people keep talking about Socialism. Most think Euro-style and don’t think of it as evil. What hussein is shooting for is Marxism or Communism, and that’s what we should be calling it.
#634890

On February 26th, 2009 at 9:17 pm, TooMuchTime said:

How the socialists feel about socialism:

A century of failure proves nothing.

This is proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. The definition of crazy is to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

Liberals keep trying socialism over and over and every time, they expect good results. However, all the people get is misery, loss of rights, loss of property, and in the end, loss of life.

There has never been a successful socialist country. Ever. If socialism is so great, then why, after nearly 50 years of suffering through it, East Germany threw off the shackles of socialism and chose freedom instead? Why didn’t free West Germany join with the “workers paradise” of socialist East Germany? Because after you suffer the misery of socialism you want to be free.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

- Winston Churchill
#634898

On February 26th, 2009 at 9:31 pm, Salt said:

On February 26th, 2009 at 6:14 pm, undresiege said:

I appreciate your response. We may differ politically, but it sounds as though we’re agreed on opposing any incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine.
#634900

On February 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pm, garydt said:

LGM you are a liar and your side uses the scare tactics fully with the backing of the media which is in your court. Notice Durbin doesn’t seem to mind the tv media having the fair doctrine does he? He doesn’t mind that the paper media has the fairness doctrine either. He is only attacking the one media that he can’t control as of now. There is plenty of space on the radio for leftys to put their radio stations on now. Just go do it.
#634902

On February 26th, 2009 at 9:36 pm, zorro said:

There will be a revolt if anything that looks, or smells like a “Fairness” Doctrine passes. Guaranteed. If those fools want a fight with the silent majority, pass the “Fairness Doctrine”, go ahead, make my day…
#634906

On February 26th, 2009 at 9:45 pm, happyscrapper said:

On February 26th, 2009 at 9:36 pm, zorro said:
There will be a revolt if anything that looks, or smells like a “Fairness” Doctrine passes. Guaranteed. If those fools want a fight with the silent majority, pass the “Fairness Doctrine”, go ahead, make my day…

Somehow, “Fairness Doctrine” just doesn’t describe what this really is. We need to change it to censorship, as it actually is! The liberals named it, like they named “stimulus bill”, which is actually “reparations bill”. We need to stop falling into their trap.
#634990

On February 27th, 2009 at 3:52 am, wild thing2 said:

Thank you Michelle,the dems don’t want freedom of speech unless it is theirs.
#635008

On February 27th, 2009 at 6:30 am, herself said:

Well, now. If the liberals have to be given a chance to purchase media outlets in areas which lack diversity then let it happen. Sell at market rates.

Then purchase the stations back after the lefties lose the shirts off their backs trying to promote their agenda over the radio. The price should be well under the price for which you sold the station.

{^_-}
#635116

On February 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am, lgm said:

garydt (#107)

I think you have it backwards. The fairness doctrine (not the fair doctrine) is that media using public airwaves should not be allowed to favor one or the other political party. If they have a show bashing Democrats, they should have an equal show bashing Republicans. This applies to broadcast media only, not cable and not print or internet.

That means TV (not cable) and radio. The radio part was dropped maybe 20 years ago. This made is possible for Republican hatemongers like Limbaugh to make a profit trashing America.
#635162

On February 27th, 2009 at 10:35 am, Salt said:

On February 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am, lgm said:

I think you have it backwards. The fairness doctrine (not the fair doctrine) is that media using public airwaves should not be allowed to favor one or the other political party.

Do you want equal opportunity or equal outcomes, lgm? Be honest.
#635184

On February 27th, 2009 at 10:58 am, RTater said:

Laree – You sure were right. The Turban Durbin amendment passed, backdoor “fairness” doctrine.
#636056

On February 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, lgm said:

Salt said (#113):

Do you want equal opportunity or equal outcomes? Be honest.

In media, equal opportunity is best for liberals. Put Hannity in a fair debate with Maddow, and Hannity will be exposed for the fraud he is.
#636182

On February 28th, 2009 at 7:07 pm, Salt said:

On February 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, lgm said:

Salt said (#113):

Do you want equal opportunity or equal outcomes? Be honest.

In media, equal opportunity is best for liberals. Put Hannity in a fair debate with Maddow, and Hannity will be exposed for the fraud he is.

That’s your opinion and it skirts the question. By contrast, Air America did poorly, even in a liberal market.

So, I ask again: Do you want equal opportunity or equal outcome?
#636423

On March 1st, 2009 at 6:38 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

In media, equal opportunity is best for liberals. Put Hannity in a fair debate with Maddow, and Hannity will be exposed for the fraud he is.

If liberals knew how to manage a budget and would not put their dopey ideology of “progress” above that of journalistic integrity, they would not be in the mess they are in.