February 16, 2009

Get "too many" hits on your politically one-sided blog? Watch out

A Fairness Doctrine reimposition for the airwaves may be the least of our worries. If [some] Democrats get their way, the Internet could be next:

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. “It’s all about diversity in media,” says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. “Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them.”

“This isn’t just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven’t heard about,” says a Democrat committee member. “The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we’ve established that broadband networks — the Internet — are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."

Read that again. If you have a heavily trafficked blog, and you don't link to other points of view, you might soon be required to. It isn't enough that there are THOUSANDS of different points of view out on the 'net; no, our nanny state-minded Democrats don't trust YOU to know how to find 'em. Apparently moving your mouse a little and/or using Google to type in "[political view] blogs" is too CUMBERSOME for the average American. It's an unnecessary HINDRANCE.

Democrats are going to "make sure" the views they want you to know about ARE seen and heard. They say so right there above. And I -- and many others -- may just HAVE TO link to them. Whether we want to or not.

Posted by Hube at February 16, 2009 06:51 PM | TrackBack

Comments

What part of this don't Democrats understand?:

"Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

I mean, seriously. PLEASE let this go to the Supreme court.

Vic

Posted by: ScreenRant.com at February 16, 2009 08:28 PM

I would agree with the concern expressed here, but I do have one question: What do we do with terrorists and the like who use the internet to promote their terror and/or to promote insurrection, you know, the violent overthrow of the government? This dilemma has always been a difficult one to address while maintaining the right to free speech.

Posted by: Perry at February 17, 2009 09:09 AM

Has Waxman been taking trips to China for his research? You know, 'cause you can't even Google Falun Gong there because it contradicts the party line. The left keeps crowing about how they won, how they're the majority, how the right needs to shut up and go along with the program, and how any deviation from the Reid/Pelosi/Obama party line is unpatriotic and obstructionist. Doesn't that acknowledge that Limbaugh and Hannity, et al. are the very alternative message they claim to want to encourage?

And to answer your question Perry, we can't suppress radical Islamic websites (or even monitor them) because that might violate their civil rights.

Posted by: G Rex at February 17, 2009 09:28 AM

Advocation of violence, when it involves a degree of imminence, isn't protected speech, Perry. But merely saying "We should have a revolution here in America" is protected b/c there is no indication of violence. Even if you said "We have to have an armed revolution, that still is protected since it is merely a general statement with no degree of imminence, nor is it directed at anyone/anything specific.

Posted by: Hube at February 17, 2009 10:19 AM

People tend to read and to link to sites and articles that reaffirm their own position.

I actually try to read "the other side", e.g. TPM and DailyKos (which although I disagree with them most of the time is actually an excellent site).

This is very, very scary indeed.

Posted by: Shirley at February 17, 2009 03:27 PM

Hube, here is something that will surprise you and make you happy:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/

Posted by: Perry at February 18, 2009 05:58 PM

That is good to know. With Obama against it, it's likely to diminish the enthusiasm of Dems in Congress.

Let's hope.

Posted by: Hube at February 18, 2009 06:07 PM