The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.
However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court), "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, where there is no such technical limit on the number of possible newspapers. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not forbid editorials by non-profit stations that received grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)). The Court's 5-4 majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the Fairness Doctrine's limits unnecessary, "We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required." (footnote 11). After noting that the FCC was considering repealing the Fairness Doctrine rules on editorials and personal attacks out of fear that those rules might be "chilling speech", the Court added Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine "[has] the net effect or reducing rather than enhancing" speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case. (footnote 12).[7] On Nov 11, 12:09 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i hate to break it to you but the fairness doctrine has never been > ruled unconstitutional . next time do a little research ! > > On Nov 10, 8:04 pm, KeithInTampa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 9, 3:11 am, "mike [Chief Moonbat] 532" wrote: > > > please show how and where the fairness doctrine violated the > > constitution ! > > > ==== > > > How about for starters, that little clause that states, "Congress > > shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the > > press..." > > > I doubt if you have ever read the document, but assuming for a second > > that I am incorrect, and you have read the document, it is clear from > > a number of your postings that you don't understand the verbiage. You > > are not alone, Senator Charles Schumer has for years demonstrated that > > he does not understand the Constitution of the United States, yet > > Moonbats in New York continue to re-elect this Anti-American. > > > With regard to a new, revised Fairness Doctrine, I think the > > socialists are biting off more than they can proverbially chew. As I > > understand it, this bill would apply to all forms of media, that are > > open, public airwaves. This would include ABC, NBC and CBS, so in > > essence, it will mean the demise of their biased news broadcasts. The > > same goes for shows like The View, Boston Legal, well, damn near > > everything that is produced in California would have to be afforded > > equal time. > > > Excuse my language, but I can think of no better > > term....."Clusterfuck" comes to mind....- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
