Censorship

The Sordid History of the Fairness Doctrine

It was terrible for free speech on the radio dial. We shouldn't inflict it on the internet too.

|

After Twitter permanently suspended Donald Trump's account, conservative interest in mandating online platform neutrality spiked. Meanwhile, progressives alarmed by the Capitol riot called for reviving the Fairness Doctrine to combat the misinformation circulating about the election. The national mood has never been more favorable for some kind of government regulation of the internet.

The Fairness Doctrine hasn't been active policy at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since the 1980s, so public knowledge of the doctrine is hazy at best. But the more you learn about the actual history of the Fairness Doctrine and its antecedents, the clearer it becomes that applying similar regulations to the internet would be a mistake.

When many people hear the phrase "Fairness Doctrine," they picture a time at some indeterminate point in the past when broadcast media were reasonable and balanced. Back then, they imagine, radio and television station owners couldn't air only their own opinions and spread unchecked misinformation; they had to let the other side on any given hot-button issue have a say, allowing the "good guys" to act as a check on the "bad guys" and their lies.

That narrative is almost entirely a myth. Despite its evocative name, the Fairness Doctrine was primarily a tool wielded by established political interests to suppress unwelcome speech.

The true story of the Fairness Doctrine begins long before the first major implementation of the doctrine in 1963, back before the rule was enacted in 1949, back all the way to the Radio Act of 1927. That law created the FCC's precursor, the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), and gave it the power to license and limit radio stations. Among other things, the law required licensees to promote "the public interest, convenience, and necessity" and not simply to serve their own interests.

Does that sound vague to you? It certainly did to station owners in the 1920s and '30s. Whose convenience are we talking about? What content is necessary and what is not? Is there even such a thing as a singular public interest? The inherent ambiguity also meant incredible opportunities for graft and political privilege. In practice, the more political connections and capital you possessed, the more "public interest" your license application had. The commission maintained a revolving door with the major radio networks, and the networks quickly consolidated what had been a relatively diverse and independent radio landscape.

Non-WASPs and political radicals in particular faced an uphill battle when applying for station licenses. In 1928, for example, the FRC attempted to reassign the license for the leftist Queens station WEVD, named after the socialist leader Eugene Victor Debs. It took a major public pressure campaign to convince the agency that the station showed "due regard for the opinions of others," which was necessary given that they were "the mouthpiece of a substantial political or religious minority" and thus not naturally deserving of a broadcast voice. Of course, non-socialist stations never had to show a similar "due regard"; it was taken for granted that they represented the public interest.

Similarly, in 1933 the FRC decided that two stations in Chicago—WIBO and WPCC, which served a predominantly immigrant audience—should lose their licenses to a new station, WJKS, because the latter's programming was better "designed to meet the needs of the foreign population." By what standard? Well, WJKS promised to air programming that "stress[ed] loyalty to the community and the Nation" and taught "American ideals and responsibilities." The FRC had decided that the public interest was synonymous with ethno-nationalist self-interest, the 1930s regulatory version of an "English only" sign.

Federal regulation ensured that radio broadcasting in the 1930s became less diverse, less weird, less independent, more corporate, more anodyne, and more centralized. Even actress and comedian Mae West was barred from the airwaves for 13 years after she dared to utter this shocking obscenity in a 1937 radio sketch: "Come on home with me, honey. I'll let you play in my wood pile." Thank goodness the government was there to protect the public interest against mild innuendo!

The commission's crackdown did not go unchallenged. Take "Fightin' Bob" Shuler, a muckraking fundamentalist pastor from Los Angeles who used his platform to expose local politicians and businessmen for their involvement in one of the largest financial frauds to that point in U.S. history, the Julian Petroleum scandal. His enemies retaliated by asking the FRC not to renew his license, and the commission proceeded to revoke his right to broadcast. Shuler sued, claiming a violation of his free speech rights.

The case, Trinity Methodist Church South v. Federal Radio Commission (1932), made its way to a federal circuit court, which denied Shuler's claim and, more importantly, upheld the FRC's power to license or deny stations on the basis of the content of their speech. All subsequent jurisprudence on broadcast speech regulation hinged on this and a handful of other cases from the time.

There's a vital contrast between what was happening with First Amendment claims in broadcasting versus developments in print media. Just a year prior to Shuler's case, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Near v. Minnesota (1931) that prior restraint on newspapers by state governments was censorship. As a result, two radically different media regimes emerged: Print speech got ever firmer and clearer protections, while radio speech received distinctly second-class status. The FCC could freely grant or pull licenses based on whether it believed a station's speech fit within "the public interest," which in turn meant whatever a small group of industry lobbyists, political flunkies, and communications lawyers managed to form a consensus about.

How did the government get away with denying broadcasters full free speech rights? When challenged in cases like Trinity, they appealed to something called the "scarcity rationale." Since the electromagnetic spectrum is physically finite, they argued, the First Amendment shouldn't apply to radio. The government needed to choose winners and losers, because someone had to decide who got a license and who did not.

This was always a convenient legal fiction, if for no other reason than because the FCC has never hit the technical limit on the number of possible broadcast stations, either then or now. To the extent that there was scarcity on the airwaves, it was artificially imposed by the FCC itself. By limiting the number of stations, the agency protected powerful media companies from competition, as when it delayed regulatory approval for FM radio because of lobbying by businesses heavily invested in AM broadcasting. Nevertheless, the courts bought the scarcity rationale excuse until the 1990s.

Thus, a readily corruptible government agency with a sweeping but ambiguous mandate had authority over the airwaves. Politicians quickly discerned an opportunity to manipulate the regulators for political advantage. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example, had little tolerance for those who questioned the New Deal. Some of his most vociferous opponents were conservative newspaper owners, who were increasingly critical after Roosevelt's Supreme Court–packing scheme in 1937. Now, Roosevelt couldn't go after them directly, thanks to that pesky First Amendment, but many of these newspapermen had begun to buy radio stations, and in that arena FDR could target them for special regulatory attention.

As one former commissioner put it, Roosevelt "put the blow torch" on his FCC chairman, Larry Fly, to use various regulations to shut down the president's enemies. Among other measures, Fly proposed a cross-media ownership ban; it ultimately failed but it still tied up newspaper acquisition of FM licenses for several years. (President Richard Nixon's FCC would ultimately enact a cross-media ownership ban in an attempt to intimidate the owner of The Washington Post into easing up on the paper's Watergate reporting.)

Fly's most lasting legacy was the Mayflower Doctrine, a direct precursor of the Fairness Doctrine. In the 1941 Mayflower decision, the FCC ruled that a station that had "editorialized" by criticizing FDR would lose its license to a disgruntled former employee. "A truly free radio," Fly wrote, "cannot be used to advocate the causes of the licensee. It cannot be used to the support of principles he happens to regard most favorably. In brief, the broadcaster cannot be an advocate." Well, then. 

The radio industry pushed back, and in 1949 the FCC backed away from the ban on editorializing. But it kept a crucial component, which was that licensees operated "under an obligation to insure that opposing points of view will also be presented." This 1949 statement was the basis of the Fairness Doctrine. But the Fairness Doctrine remained notional from 1949 to 1963, with relatively little attempt to exercise the vast powers the FCC had claimed for itself—certainly nothing as extensive as its efforts during the 1930s. Yet something big was changing in the broadcasting industry, something with enormous consequences for regulatory policy.

After World War II, the major networks, which had controlled 95 percent of all radio stations in America in 1945, shifted their attention and capital investment to television. By 1952, fewer than half of radio stations were network affiliates, a ratio that continued to fall through the rest of the decade. Most new radio licenses during this period were going to small-timers—say, a local car dealer who wanted a station to advertise his business. Finances were tight for these independent stations, so the owners were open to selling timeslots to groups the networks wouldn't have given the time of day to. 

That included a new generation of right-wing broadcasters, who (mostly unfairly) attacked liberals and Democrats as unpatriotic Communist sympathizers. After President John F. Kennedy's election in 1960, he became a particular target of these broadcasters, who went after everything from his mishandling of the Bay of Pigs invasion to his proposed Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

This Radio Right emerged rapidly. The biggest of them, a fundamentalist minister from New Jersey named Carl McIntire, could be heard on just two radio stations in 1956; by 1963, he was on more than 460 outlets. His estimated weekly audience was 20 million people—about as many as Rush Limbaugh reached 40 years later.

JFK, who had narrowly won in 1960, wanted these irritants quashed. His brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, concocted a detailed plan for doing so with the help of Walter and Victor Reuther, executives with the United Automobile Workers. Their plan, later nicknamed the "Reuther Memorandum," had many moving parts, but the two most significant involved the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Communications Commission. The tax agency, though a program called the "Ideological Organizations Project," would target right-wing broadcasters for audits in order to dry up the flow of small-dollar listener donations they used to buy airtime. Meanwhile, the FCC would use the Fairness Doctrine to pressure stations not to sell airtime to the offending broadcasters.

In 1963, JFK told his newly appointed FCC chief, Bill Henry, "It is important that stations be kept fair." Henry listened. One of his first official acts as chairman was to issue a clarification of the Fairness Doctrine that promised a new push for enforcement. The statement singled out only examples of conservative speech that needed balancing by liberal voices, and not vice versa.

Enforcement hinged on members of the public filing Fairness Doctrine complaints with the commission. At license renewal time, the FCC would consider the quantity and quality of Fairness Doctrine complaints. Losing a license—which was rare in this period—was the death penalty for a radio station. But even if a station didn't lose its license, it would have to bear the expense of hiring legal counsel to fight the complaints and extra staff to prove compliance.

Henry's most useful tool in enhancing the Fairness Doctrine was a complementary rule known as the Cullman Doctrine, which stipulated that response time claimed under the Fairness Doctrine should be provided for free if the respondents said they couldn't afford to pay. (Unsurprisingly, nobody ever said they could pay.) This made direct criticism of public figures and administration policies an expensive proposition for the station owners, who responded by ditching conservative broadcasters known for making attacks.

Here is one example of how the Kennedy administration weaponized the Fairness Doctrine. In 1963, JFK negotiated the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union. He planned to make it the centerpiece of his re-election bid. The Radio Right attacked it ceaselessly during the summer of '63. This mattered, because Kennedy needed two-thirds of the Senate for treaty ratification.

So the White House secretly organized a front organization—the Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban—to threaten stations that aired conservative criticisms of the treaty with Fairness Doctrine complaints unless they were given free response time. The plan was a success, hundreds of hours of free pro-treaty airtime was secured, and the treaty passed by a comfortable margin.

Kennedy was killed shortly thereafter, but the Democratic National Committee picked up the Fairness Doctrine baton. It secretly organized a pressure campaign—complete with its own front organization—to extract free airtime for Lyndon Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Thousands of hours of free airtime were secured, but as the party's operatives reported after the election, even "more important than the free radio time…was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these Right Wing broadcasts." Stations dropped conservative programming en masse.

When the U.S. Supreme Court validated the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), it did so unaware that the Democratic National Committee had secretly sponsored the original complainant, feeding him opposition research and even paying for his health insurance. By this time, President Nixon was wielding the Fairness Doctrine against the left.

Conservative radio didn't make a comeback until relatively laissez-faire commissioners appointed by President Jimmy Carter (the true Great Deregulator) stopped rigorously enforcing the Fairness Doctrine. Ronald Reagan's FCC ended the rule in 1987, and Reagan vetoed a bi-partisan bill to reinstate it.

We are fortunate that Congress and the courts decided in the 1990s to regulate the internet under a print regulatory regime rather than a broadcast regime. As a result, the internet was "born free," to borrow a phrase from Adam Thierer. For example, when Congress codified Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it extended to the internet a set of legal precedents that had protected bookstores from publisher liability.

And thank goodness they did! Imagine how disastrous a Fairness Doctrine for the internet would be, if outlets and platforms had an affirmative obligation to ensure that either articles published or user posts permitted were carefully balanced according to some ambiguous public interest standard. Think of the mischief that, say, President Donald Trump could have done under a Fairness Doctrine-style regime. The Trump reelection campaign—or some ostensibly independent PAC—could have forced outlets to run a response to any criticism of the administration.

The Fairness Doctrine as originally conceived would not pass legal muster for cable broadcasting or the internet. But there have been proposals for Fairness Doctrine–style regulations that would make an end-run around First Amendment protections by targeting Section 230's liability waiver. For instance, in 2019 Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a bill that would have given the Federal Trade Commission the power to certify that social media platforms are politically neutral with their content moderation policies; decertification would have exposed companies to significant legal liability. Hawley's legislation was laughed off at the time, but just last October several Senate Republicans, including Lindsey Graham, introduced a bill that would make platforms liable for their moderation of political speech.

These approaches might not pass First Amendment muster. But even if they ultimately failed in court, that would still mean years of messy legal challenges with significant chilling effects on online speech and innovation. 

Despite its name, the Fairness Doctrine was deeply unfair. It made broadcasting less diverse, more beholden to powerful corporate interests, and more susceptible to political abuse. And it was a key weapon in one of the most successful censorship campaigns in American history. It would be a mistake of historic proportions to mimic it while writing regulations for the internet.

NEXT: The Dangerous Paradise of 1980 Miami

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A company I used to work for also used “fair” as a code word for destroying the competition. If you talk about “destroying” the competition in any document subject to discovery your lawyer will have a sad. Potential antitrust violation. So the formal goal as a “fair” share of the market. The rest of the presentation was oral. (This was before everybody carried a phone with audio recording capability.)

    1. Making money online more than 100$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18,376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular QCub office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info…

      Visit>>>>>>>>>>> Home Profit System<<<<<<<<<<<

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than AVD regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page……..MORE READ

        1. During his first week in office, Biden also abolished a Trump-era rule that imposed some measure EWfg of accountability on the federal bureaucracy.……..MORE READ

    2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take bfd a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

      1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however GBF my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

        Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HARE

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than TWD regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page……..MORE READ

  2. Take “Fightin’ Bob” Shuler, a muckraking fundamentalist pastor from Los Angeles who used his platform to expose local politicians and businessmen for their involvement in one of the largest financial frauds to that point in U.S. history, the Julian Petroleum scandal.

    Interesting that one who exposed actual corruption is described as a muckraker.
    Also interesting that all pastors described are described as “fundamentalist”.

    1. Not all pastors are “fundamentalist” but Shuler certainly was.

      Note that neither Shuler nor the Southern Methodist Church from which he preached would have considered “fundamentalist” a pejorative. Fundamentalism, as defined by the 1910 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is belief in the five “fundamentals”:
      – Biblical inspiration of scripture (which implies the infallibility of scripture)
      – Virgin birth of Jesus
      – Historical reality of miracles
      – Christ’s death was the atonement for sin
      – Bodily resurrection

      Whether or not you believe those things, it is not a pejorative to describe others who believe those things as “fundamentalist”.

      1. For all of you eggheads “out there” who want a deeper understanding of ALL of the above, and more, from a secular standpoint, but also from a person who obviously has deep knowledge of the Bible, I HIGHLY recommend Peter McWilliams and “Ain’t Nobody’s Business…” https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/192976717X/reasonmagazinea-20/

        1. Ain’t Nobody’s Business is excellent, but I’m still working through its 1,000+ pages.

          While those who believe in the so-called “5 fundamentals” are fundamentalists, those of us who don’t believe in any of those mind controlling fairy tails are called atheists, secular humanists, realists, rationalists, naturists, scientists, etc.

          1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person say join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
            COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

          2. So Christians who believe in the most basic tenets of their religion are all “fundies” now? That’s absurd and the author used an inappropriate definition without contextualization.

            You should also know that rationalism and science are not without its limits, that there are atheistic/humanistic forms of fundamentalism (by the modern negative connotative definition), and that naturism is a self-refuting concept.

  3. ‘Also interesting that all pastors described are described as “fundamentalist”.’

    Indeed! I wish that all pastors (etc.) would focus on the “fundamental” of “loving one’s neighbors as one loves oneself”, with all other details being as mice nuts! THAT is MY kind of “fundamentalist”!

    However, the REAL “fundamental” of WAAAAY too many politicians (be they religious politicians or political politicians) is, instead, to punish one’s enemies, and to reward oneself and one’s friends! Usually in that order!

    1. Have a fun with family and do online work without investing single penny. No limit of earn, earn as much as you spent time online. For more detail … Visit Here

    2. I think “loving one’s neighbors as one loves oneself” is only legal if you also take a strict prohibition on self gratification

      1. Making money online more than 100$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18,376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info… >>>>>>>USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

  4. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours Then try this……   Read More

  5. Matzgo went to great lengths to not mention the benefits of the Fairness Doctrine.

    In 1968-70, attorney John Banzhaff successfully petitioned the FCC (citing the Fairness Doctrine) to require television companies to broadcast one PSA (public service announcement) educating viewers of the harms caused by cigarette smoking for every three cigarette advertisements they broadcast.

    The PSAs on television caused cigarette sales to plummet, which prompted the cigarette industry to organize a stealth lobbying campaign that convinced Congress to ban all cigarette ads on television and radio (as a strategy to get rid of all the PSAs warning people about cigarette hazards).

    The cigarette industry’s lobbyists secretly lined up the votes in Congress (to ban cigarette ads on , while and duping the news media to credit the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the US Surgeon Generals office for achieving this huge public health victory (while none of these health groups realized they were being used by Big Tobacco to stop the decline in cigarette sales, by eliminating all the anti smoking advertisements).

    It was very effective, as cigarette sale began to increase again after cigarette ads were banned from television and radio.

    Then, cigarette companies began sponsoring televised sports events (Virginia Slims Tennis, Marlboro Grand Prix, Winston 500) that were literally two hour cigarette advertisements. Dr. Alan Blum once counted more than 3,000 showings of a Marlboro sign or logo during a Marlboro Grand Prix race on television.

    During the 1980s and 1990s, I organized protests at many different sporting events sponsored and advertised by cigarette companies, which convinced all cigarette companies to stop all sports sponsorships and advertising (which the companies subsequently agreed to do when signing the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement with 46 States.

    I’m not taking a position on the Fairness Doctrine, but rather exposing a key component of its history.

    1. Another fan of Big Brother fixing problems it created, I see. No thanks.

      1. The only way to fix problems that are created by Big Brother is to lobby legislatures, Congress and executive branch officials to change those laws.

        But as always, the devil is in the detail, as the worst laws were lobbied for by selfish special interests (to protect themselves from competition by others), while paying off lots of folks to deceitfully present the legislation as necessary to protect children, the environment, the Internet, etc.

        Big Tech is now paying lots of folks off to promote Big Tech monopoly legislation as necessary to “Regulate Big Tech”.

        Its called regulatory capture.

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. say Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
          COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

        2. Talk about someone who is under “mind controlling fairy tails [sic]”… repent, Bill. Repent!

    2. What was most amazing about this was how the cigarette industry secretly colluded (via the now defunct Tobacco Institute) to lobby US Congress to ban all cigarette ads from television and radio, while arranging for all the public credit (for the enactment of the ban) to the useful idiots at AMA, ACS, AHA, ALA, SG Office and CDC, who appeared in the news media congratulating themselves for their supposed victory over Big Tobacco (while the cigarette industry executives who orchestrated this scheme got well deserved pay hikes).

      These public health groups actually believed (and boasted) that they were the reason why Congress banned cigarette ads from television in 1970, until I pointed out in 1989/90 that they had all been duped by Big Tobacco (twenty years earlier).

      Those health groups finally realized they had been duped and used by Big Tobacco in 1997 when Tobacco Institute documents (obtained during discovery of state lawsuits against cigarette companies) delineated this and other actions they took (e.g. paying off the AMA in the 1960s to not warn people about smoking’s dangers) to continue increasing cigarette sales.

      But of course, those health groups have never acknowledged that they were duped and used by Big Tobacco, which happened again from 2002-2009 when Philip Morris lobbied Congress to have FDA regulated tobacco products (and duped those same health groups to not only support, but champion their Tobacco Control Act, that authorized FDA regulations for tobacco products, as “Protecting children from Big Tobacco”.

      And of course, just as Philip Morris attorneys intended, the 2009 Tobacco Control Act grandfathered all of their deadly cigarettes (as FDA approved so they could remain on the US market), while requiring all new low risk smokefree tobacco products (that weren’t on the US market before 2007) to obtain FDA approval before they could legally market their products (which the FDA applied to electronic cigarettes in 2014, due to cigarette company lobbying).

      To date, the FDA still hasn’t approved the sale of ANY electronic cigarette / nicotine vapor product (whose applications cost >$50 million), even though they are about 99% less harmful than cigarettes.

      That’s why cigarette sales stopped declining this year, and why nicotine vapor products have plummeted. Although FDA officially banned the sale of ALL nicotine vapes in September 2020, the agency has taken very little enforcement action (as they know that cigarette sales will begin increasing if/when they enforce the e-cig sales ban).

      But its coming.

      1. I have the impression Reason covered this…

    3. So you’re an activist who supports using government force to make people do stuff because they’re too stupid to do it for themselves.

      No wonder you hate libertarians.

    4. Fuck off slaver.

    5. I think one of the main intentions the FCC (and its predecessors) had in mind regarding “public interest” was not squelching objectionable content but the ability to commandeer the bandwidth in case of a national emergency. Something that still exists today via the (perhaps antiquated?) Emergency Broadcast System. That said, I don’t agree that the FCC has artificially suppressed exploitation of the full spectrum of broadcast frequencies. Without oversight, broadcasting would be dominated by whoever built the biggest transmitter. Of course, they have also allowed legacy license holders to reap massive profits by selling off their depreciated broadcast frequencies.

  6. Another Mae West story, which I have no links for: She was a bar girl, her stockings were labeled “Christmas” and “New Year’s Eve”, and she told a guy to “come up and see me between the holidays.”

    I sure would like it to be true, but like I said, no links or evidence. Don’t know what movie, but if she was a bar girl showing stockings, I’d guess a western.

    1. https://www.quotes.net/mquote/65879

      Another Mae West quote there, from “My Little Chickadee”!

      (I couldn’t copy and past it, and am too lazy to re-type it).

  7. But who could be against fairness?

    1. Fascists, socialists, democrats, monarchists?

  8. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Here… Click here.

  9. The incident mentioned in the article about Mae West is not quite accurate. She was banned for a ‘sacrilegious’ portrayal of Eve in an Adam and Eve skit on a variety program. You can read more about it here: http://ultimatehistoryproject.com/mae-west-incident.html and listen to the actual episode here: https://otrrlibrary.org/OTRRLib/Library%20Files/C%20Series/Chase%20And%20Sanborn%20Hour/Chase%20And%20Sanborn%20Hour%2037-12-12%20Guest%20-%20Mae%20West.mp3

  10. Conservatives would destroy the internet to get back a Twitter and Facebook for censoring their Dear Leader.

    Cut off your nose mumble mumble face something….

    1. You still think conservatives are a threat to social media?

      Really?

      1. I think that conservatives want to punish private companies for their discretion, with no care or thought of the long term effects.

        1. You could say the same thing about private (actually public) companies and individuals.

          1. With the same short-sightedness, vehemence, and call for government force?

        2. The fact that you’re pretending those companies are private demonstrates that you’re lying your ass off right now.

          Facebook and Google got as big as they did due to government investment and sponsorship, through In-Q-Tel, or through their proxies.
          Every top Facebook and Google executive and board member has worked at one point or another for an elected Democratic party government official or their campaign.
          Schumer and Pelosi own millions in Facebook and Google stocks.

          You know as well as the rest of us do that the censorship, deplatforming, financial attacks and threats are part of a political campaign by the Democrats, who are using their corporate auxiliaries to evade the first amendment.

          Literally textbook fascism and you’re pushing it.

  11. Here is fair under the Biden Administration:
    Only hours after Elon Musk derided the decision of the Biden administration FAA to delay a manned mission to Mars, the U.S. Department of Justice, under the Biden administration, announced it is investigating Musk’s SpaceX to determine whether the company discriminates against non-US citizens in its hiring practices.
    nationalfile – by Tom Pappert – Jan. 30 2021
    Only hours after Elon Musk derided the decision of the Biden administration FAA to delay a manned mission to Mars, the U.S. Department of Justice, under the Biden administration, announced it is investigating Musk’s SpaceX to determine whether the company discriminates against non-US citizens in its hiring practices.
    Political retribution and retaliation is now the Democrats weapon. Do NOT even dare to criticize or you two will be in trouble.

    1. Here is fair under the Biden Administration:
      Only hours after Elon Musk derided the decision of the Biden administration FAA to delay a manned mission to Mars, the U.S. Department of Justice, under the Biden administration, announced it is investigating Musk’s SpaceX to determine whether the company discriminates against non-US citizens in its hiring practices.
      nationalfile – by Tom Pappert – Jan. 30 2021
      Only hours after Elon Musk derided the decision of the Biden administration FAA to delay a manned mission to Mars, the U.S. Department of Justice, under the Biden administration, announced it is investigating Musk’s SpaceX to determine whether the company discriminates against non-US citizens in its hiring practices.
      Political retribution and retaliation is now the Democrats weapon. Do NOT even dare to criticize or you too will be in trouble.

  12. Dems don’t even need a Fairness Doctrine anymore

    just ask Parler

  13. FDR was trying to make himself Dictator-for-Life. He was well on his way to success. I may have to rethink my position that Woodrow Wilson was our worst President.

    1. Hmmm, well he did win 4 terms & died in office. What do you think that made him? While he didn’t wield dictatory powers he probably came closer than most any other president. He also won all 4 elections by landslide totals.

      On the other hand, While I don’t expect that folks on a libertarian website would give him credit, FDR was arguably walking a tightrope between the extreme left & right. The concept that Communism could rise in the USA was much more realistic in the 1930s than it has been since (certainly since the truth of the USSR became more widely known). While FDR took America further left, it easily could have gone much, much further left (or to the Fascist right as a backlash). In many regards, FDR kept America closer to the middle path than other presidents might have done. Left leaning ideas remained popular in America for a long while after, to the point that many elements in the GOP platforms of the 1950s would be derided as “radical left” today.

      1. How did massively prolonging a depression help keep America from going communist? He railed against the “economic royalists” but the truth was he was a representative of the establishment who was always solidly on it’s side. People kept out of work by minimum wage laws designed to hurt black people were more likely to go communist. Businessmen ruined by idiotic rules were more likely to go fascist (not that there would be a difference) He didn’t stop the leftward slide or the counterbalancing “far right” movement, he just weaponized it.

  14. My daughter wrote a trenchant piece on the Fairness Doctrine published in Human Events while in college back in 2007. As apropos today as then:

    https://humanevents.com/2007/02/23/how-about-title-ix-for-free-speech/

  15. Fairness eh, so the public gives the internet giants immunity…and the internet giants get to keep all their insane profits. Yea, that makes sense.

  16. Yes, I get it. What I’d really like to hear is what would Reason do if it gets censored? A great deal of what Reason advocates is labelled by the Democrat-Silicon Valley-Mainstream Media censorship alliance variously as hate speech, disinformation, and words-as-violence. Do you think your solid “Orange Man Bad” portfolio will save you? It won’t, that’s old news. What I am really interested in is what Reason is going to do if/when censorship visits their house? Paint lamb’s blood over door? You might as well try as you have no tools to oppose the censorship wave should it make its way to you.

    Almost all of the internet infrastructure is controlled by private companies. 99.9% of the bytes flow through routers owned by big corporations. Most DNS servers are privately owned, almost all of the online presence is managed by private hosting companies. Private banks and financial institutions manage payments. Apple and Google control the smartphone software market through their app stores.

    AWS kicking out Parler from their hosting, Visa denying payments to Gab, and Apple and Google kicking Parler out of their app stores represent *unforced*, voluntary censorship. There was no plausible business reason for those actions, they just wanted to silence right-wing speech to satisfy purely authoritarian impulses.

    The small number of articles you write are pretty much your only tools. Wasting those articles on low-priority, low-hanging fruit, boring garbage like defending “Section 230” or “Orange Man Bad” or “Please Dr. Jill Biden, Gibbs Me Some Libertarianism, C’mon Just a Little” is wasting your ammunition. When the censorship wave hits you it’ll be too late to complain because you’ll be dead in the water.

  17. The FAANGT monopolies are in place because our federal and state governments have granted corporations powers distinct from individual citizens. Those powers were expected to bring public good when they were enacted. Section 230 is there to protect the lonely outpost of of the publisher from civil liability. Limited Liability is there to enable giantism in corporations where no matter what it does, all that can be lost is the actual capital value of the corporation (which almost never happens). This limited liability allowed Union Carbid to kill 1000’s of people in India and only get a huge slap in the face. The assets were not divided up and sold at auction and the people of Bhopal were not in any way adequately compensated. Section 230 and limited liability are statism at its finest. Both should be removed.

    I fail to see the difference between FB/TW/YouTube and a billboard you see on the highway.

    https://billboardinsider.com/rothfelder-on-defamatory-ads/

    I also fail to see terms and conditions from FAANGT where the victims (the users of those products) can sue them for civil damages. We have blessed an authoritarian monopoly on information (the social media) that is in bed with the big guys in Washington DC – sort of like Germany in the 1930’s.

  18. How should the Internet be regulated?

    Not.

Please to post comments