ADVERTISEMENT

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thinks so.

When it was law it did a couple of things: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Should this really be the government’s role?  Is ensuring “balance” in political speech the same as restricting pornography?  I don’t think so.  Right now it only applies to radio (which conservatives tend to dominate), but doesn’t apply anywhere else.  Not to say that it couldn’t eventually be extended to cable and the internet.  Slippery slope.  Schumer interview below:

HT: Hot Air

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Thanks for subscribing!
2 comments
  1. Well, it’s really not that surprising. This is the same kind for free speech philosophy that the tax code had when 501c3 tax status denied if organizations tried to influence legislation prior to 1954. It’s also the same philosophy that LBJ had in mind when he re-wrote the 501c3 tax code to include his antithesis (and others) on July 2, 1954. It’s also the same philosophy that Congress had in passing the Revenue Act of 1987 to further change the language again.

    It’s a slippery slope and we’ve been sliding for a long time!

    I’d like to see them apply the “fairness doctrine” to themselves;) Not sure how you do that;^)

    In Christ,
    Noah

  2. Well, it’s really not that surprising. This is the same kind for free speech philosophy that the tax code had when 501c3 tax status denied if organizations tried to influence legislation prior to 1954. It’s also the same philosophy that LBJ had in mind when he re-wrote the 501c3 tax code to include his antithesis (and others) on July 2, 1954. It’s also the same philosophy that Congress had in passing the Revenue Act of 1987 to further change the language again.

    It’s a slippery slope and we’ve been sliding for a long time!

    I’d like to see them apply the “fairness doctrine” to themselves;) Not sure how you do that;^)

    In Christ,
    Noah

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

First 2012 TV Commercial: Hillary Clinton for President

The first 2012 commercial is for somebody who has said she has…

George Washington v. Barack Obama, the Jury is Out

The life that counts must toil and fight, Must hate the wrong…

Donald Trump’s Legal Assault on Free Speech

Shane Vander Hart: President Donald Trump has expressed a willingness to restrict speech he views unfavorably. With the expected release of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff, we have seen that inclination once again.

Obama Is Not the Antichrist

I think I can confidently say that.  So don’t let it be…