Inhofe Warns ‘Durbin Doctrine’ is New ‘Fairness Doctrine’Speaks Out Against Democrats’ New Stealth Attack on Free SpeechOne thing that I know, when you take choice out of the market, and when you impose government’s will on an industry, that market and that industry will suffer, and that is exactly what Senator Durbin’s legislation attempts to accomplish. What was once the Fairness Doctrine has now become the Durbin Doctrine.
What, I ask, does “encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership†even mean? I certainly can’t tell you what it means, and the legislation offers no words of clarification or specificity. If I were an FCC commissioner, I wouldn’t know what to do with this language, and in any other line of work I’d send it directly back with a little note attached asking to please be more specific. But federal agencies love this kind of language because it gives them greater leeway to interpret it however they like and impose their will upon the industry that they regulate. And my democratic colleagues who promoted this amendment like this type of language because it (1) means that they don’t have to spend the time drafting quality legislation aimed at solving a specific problem, and (2) means that they can disavow their true intention of having greater government regulation of the airwaves. This legislation is so incredibly vague and so potentially far-reaching that I can’t say with any certainty what the end result will be. This is not good governance and it is not good legislative practice to cede such authority to any agency of our government, especially when the right to speak freely over the airwaves will most certainly be impacted.
Another threat to our freedom of speech is a stealth proposal called localism, which could force local radio stations to regulate the content they broadcast. It is important to note that “localism†as FCC policy already exists, but new policies that have been proposed reach far beyond ensuring that broadcasters serve their local communities. The FCC gave notice of proposed rulemaking on January 24, 2008. While the regulations were ultimately dropped, they are indicative of future attempts to regulate the airwaves through localism and something that all Americans need to know about.
Why should Washington regulate what local stations are doing already? The reason is this: these community advisory boards, or local content boards, coupled with the threat of license renewal requirements, are just one more way that liberals can affect what is broadcast over the airwaves. They have created a regulatory avenue by which to accomplish their goal of silencing talk radio because they are incapable of competing in the broadcast radio market. President Obama has expressed support for new localism regulations, and it is expected to come up again under his administration. All those who value their right to listen to the things that are important to them and important to their community must be aware of the great potential for infringement on free speech that localism will bring.
(more...)
