Pence Pushes Petition to Bury ‘Unfairness’ Doctrine

By Doug Carlson - Oct 23, 2007 - 4

An overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives voted in June to place a one-year ban on reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a defunct policy that restricted free speech on the airwaves. Now, one congressman is pushing a permanent solution that would send the policy to the ash heap of history.

Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) last week filed a discharge petition, a rarely used tactic by a minority party, on his bill that would keep the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine without an act of Congress.

If you value the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and believe the American people, not the government, should determine what types of issues are broadcast on the airwaves, please tell your congressman to add his name to Rep. Pence’s discharge petition on the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905).

The Fairness Doctrine governed broadcasters for nearly four decades, from 1949 to 1987, requiring them to present opposing viewpoints on political issues, until the FCC abolished the doctrine, contending the policy had run its course and violated the First Amendment.

If Rep. Pence’s petition receives the support of 218 House members, a simple majority of the chamber, the House leadership would be forced to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.

Prospects of achieving that level of support are favorable, even though Rep. Pence’s legislation, the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905), is largely a Republican-backed bill. All 200 Republicans had signed on as cosponsors before the discharge petition was announced; just one Democrat, Rep. John Yarmuth (KY), had issued support. Currently, 136 congressmen have signed the petition.

In July, however, Rep. Pence earned the support of 113 Democrats, in addition to all voting Republicans, on an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill preventing the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine during the 2008 fiscal year. The amendment passed overwhelmingly, 309-115.

Democrats who supported the Pence amendment are now feeling pressure from their leadership to withhold support from the Broadcaster Freedom Act. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have indicated they believe regulating political content on the airwaves is a good idea. According to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has said she is “looking at” reviving the policy.

Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine, better dubbed the “Unfairness” Doctrine, argue that conservative talk shows have left little room for liberal content on the radio airwaves. In fact, the left-leaning Center for American Progress claims in a June 2007 report that conservative talk radio outnumbers liberal broadcasting by a 9 to 1 margin, based on an analysis of 257 news/talk stations. While that may be true, it only reinforces the tried and true free market system and underscores the popularity of conservative radio. Talk radio is the marketplace of ideas, free from government interference. Many people turn to conservative programming because they can scarcely find it in television and newspaper sources.

The Fairness Doctrine made sense when it was put in place more than a half-century ago. Radio was limited to only a few stations, television consisted of the Big Three—ABC, CBS, and NBC—and the Internet had not yet been conceived. Now it is clear, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1985 and the FCC affirmed under President Reagan two years later, that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a force for, but a muzzle to, free speech.

If you value the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and believe the American people, not the government, should determine what types of issues are broadcast on the airwaves, please tell your congressman to add his name to Rep. Pence’s discharge petition on the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905).

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Legislation, National, Religious Liberty

4 comments (post your own) feed

1 On Oct 25th, 2007, at 10:23am, Del Curtis wrote:

Our Representative, JoAnn Davis, lost her bout with cancer.

Be assured, those seeking to sit in her seat in the congress will be asked their position on this important First Amendment issue.

Thanks for keeping us informed on these important issues.

2 On Oct 25th, 2007, at 10:36am, Rev. Ellis Moore wrote:

Please abide by the constitution and the right of free speech.

3 On Oct 25th, 2007, at 10:58am, Dr, Homer Ontman wrote:

It is imperative that Congress be prevented from invading our Bill of Rights Guarantees under the Constitution. Historically they have shown an initiative to do so, and we citizens MUST call them to task.

4 On Oct 25th, 2007, at 1:59pm, Del Curtis wrote:

Rev. Moore,
Sir, I don’t understand your comment. Do you believe that in some way I am not abiding by the constitution and the right of free speech? If that is your belief please let me know why, because I am a strong advocate of the First Amendment.
I look forward to your explanation.

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com