Debate: Fairness Doctrine
Revision as of 21:22, 12 November 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(→No)
← Previous diff Revision as of 21:29, 12 November 2008 (edit)
====No==== ====No====
- *'''Widespread modern media makes Fairness Doctrine unnecessary.''' [http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993] - "The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard." + *'''[[Argument: Fairness Doctrine ignores sufficiency of modern media outlets| Fairness Doctrine ignores sufficiency of modern media outlets]]''' [http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993] - "The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard."
*'''[[Argument: Fairness Doctrine harms instead of protecting free speech| Fairness Doctrine harms instead of protecting free speech]]''' [http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993] - "The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as 'unbalanced' views." *'''[[Argument: Fairness Doctrine harms instead of protecting free speech| Fairness Doctrine harms instead of protecting free speech]]''' [http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993] - "The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as 'unbalanced' views."
Should the Fairness Doctrine be Reinstated?
1. Should the Fairness Doctrine be Reinstated? |
2. Background and Context of Debate: |
3. Does the Fairness Doctrine breach the First Amendment? | | | |
4. Write Subquestion here... | | | |
6. References: |
7. Related pages on Debatepedia: |
8. External links and resources: |
Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987.
Does the Fairness Doctrine breach the First Amendment?
Fairness Doctrine ignores sufficiency of modern media outlets Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993 - "The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard."
Fairness Doctrine harms instead of protecting free speech Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993 - "The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as 'unbalanced' views."
Steve Rendall. "How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back". Common Dreams. 12 Feb. 2005
Adam Thierer. "Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair". Heritage Foundation. 29 Oct. 1993
Related pages on Debatepedia:
External links and resources:
Retrieved from "http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Fairness_Doctrine"