The American Guesser

Reuters has an interesting story about powerful senators who really, really, really want to see the Fairness Doctrine come back. And yes, people, the article does state that President-elect Obama is on record as opposing a Fairness Doctrine comeback.

Several points:

He has not stated that he would veto a new Fairness Doctrine.

He might be willing to trade his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine for something else, or simply might not be opposed enough to fight to keep it from becoming law if it’s attached to another bill.

And as the article points out, there are other ways to skin a cat:

Obama has called on Henry Rivera, who was a commissioner in the 1980s when the Fairness Doctrine existed, to oversee the FCC transition process. Rivera is a supporter of bringing back the provisions. And heading Obama’s overall transition team is John Podesta, head of liberal think tank the Center for American Progress. Last year, the CAP issued a report called “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”

While the CAP stopped short of advocating a return of the Fairness Doctrine, it did support more stringent adherence to so-called localism, which critics consider a back door to requiring that stations ditch some of their conservative hosts.

The FCC is considering the matter now, weighing such questions as whether to require stations to create “community advisory boards” made up of “local officials and other community leaders.” The boards would tell radio executives whether the content they broadcast is adequately addressing the needs of the community, subject to the board’s interpretation.

In other words, Obama isn’t going to demand that stations like WMBD1470 gut their profitable programing by requiring the station to hand over free air time to anyone who disagrees with an opinion Rush Limbaugh states.

No, what Obama and his minions on the FCC are going to require that the station — ALL stations — let volunteers from the community decide what programing to air.

In other words, fairness and equity will be mandatory.

Here’s another idea: Just demand that the FCC finally free up those low-power FM licenses that they’ve kept on hold at the behest of Big Media for years. Let these new license holders — presumably members of the local community — compete in the free marketplaces of both commerce and ideas.

From Reason Online, a look at whether or not the election of Barack Obama is bad news for freedom of speech on radio, television and the Internet:

First the good news: The fairness doctrine is still dead, and it probably will stay dead even if Barack Obama becomes president. The doctrine, a rule that gave the government the power to punish broadcasters for being insufficiently balanced, was killed off 21 years ago. It isn’t likely to return, despite persistent rumors that the regulation’s rotting corpse will crawl from its coffin and disembowel Rush Limbaugh.
Now the bad news. There’s a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations’ programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership.

[snip]

Now the bad news. There’s a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations’ programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership.

If Democrats end up with a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majorities, there’s a good chance they could succeed in re-establishing the fairness doctrine. I discussed the possibility at my other site. But James Fish of the Constitutional Matters Project had this to add:

This would be the end of political talk and opinion shows over broadcast media. That would be tragic, however, it could get worse. Presently Washington cannot regulate cable and Internet content. There is nothing to prevent the government from declaring cable and Internet are “Interstate Commerce” and subject them to the same rules as broadcast. If the Supreme Court were to declare this takeover “Constitutional” it will be the death knell for “Free Speech” and no democracy can exist without it.

One would hope there are at least a handful of Democrats who would put the breaks on this.

From Newsday.com:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A high school newspaper in California was disbanded after it published a front-page photo of a student burning an American flag, triggering criticism that the administration was stifling free expression.

Shasta High School Principal Milan Woollard said the school year’s final issue of the student-run Shasta High Volcano was embarrassing.

“The paper’s done,” Woollard told the Record Searchlight newspaper of Redding. “There is not going to be a school newspaper next year.”

This is what happens when you let kids actually read their civics textbooks. They learn all sort of uncomfortable concepts, such as the one that says they have to right to an opinion, especially if the opinion, if expressed, might cause the principal to have to answer a few phone calls.

A Portland, Ore., mom is all upset because her precious little snowflake isn’t being forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at a promotion ceremony:

“I was sad,” said parent Briana Reese. “The flag was sitting up there, you know. Two of the kids went up and they said ‘Everybody rise,’ and we rose, and I thought for just a second ‘Oh yeah, we’re going to put our hands on our hearts and we’re going to salute the flag’ – but no.”

Reese had heard that the principal planned to take the pledge out of the ceremony.

“I think that’s what they should be doing – telling kids you should be pledging your allegiance to this country,” Reese said. “This is a great country. You’re here for a reason.”

The pledge was instead replaced with a singing version of the preamble to the Constitution.

Kudos to the principal for getting it. The pledge is nothing more than a blind loyalty oath to a piece of cloth that symbolizes a nation. And thanks to tinkering over the years, it’s been turned into a form of state-mandated prayer. At least this kids are being exposed to the idea that the United States is a nation governed by laws and that the people have rights.

Conservatives and liberals like the pledge, but don’t have really warm feelings for the Constitution because, when properly followed, it tends to get in the way of whatever flavor of Nanny State nonsense they want to foist on the public.

Professor Glenn Reynolds says he wants a party that combines “GOP economic-libertarian strands with the Dems’ social-libertarian strands.” I want a party that does that too, but that pays attention to immigration issues, doesn’t blame America for what’s wrong with the world and recognizes that there are times you fight back, even if you have to strike the first blow. Oh, and he bitchslaps Trent Lott and his ilk wanting to destroy on talk radio for gettin’ the public all riled over the amnesty bill. Lott should be dead to any GOPer with the slightest libertarian bent.

Hat Tip: JAWA Report.