Del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Reddit
Newsvine
co.mments
Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.
Other Bill Titles (2 more) 6/28/2007--Introduced.
Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), notwithstanding any other provision of any Act, from having the authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public impor... moreSee Full Bill Text
Committees
Amendments
This bill has no amendments.
Bill Status
| Introduced |  | Voted on by House | | Voted on by Senate | | Considered By President | | Bill Becomes Law |
| June 28, 2007 |
Users tracking H.R.2905 (9) are also tracking:
| People | Bills | Issues |
|---|---|---|
|
In the News
October 19, 2007 Smith Calls for Congress to Vote on Broadcast Freedom Bill
Mike Pence (R-IN), compelling House Leadership to bring up the Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905) for consideration on the House floor. ...
July 24, 2007 The unfairness doctrine
I am cosponsoring the Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905), which would prohibit the FCC from adopting rules or policies reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. ...
July 17, 2007 Keep the airwaves free and clear
Therefore, I have signed on as a co-sponsor of new legislation called the Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905). This legislation is designed to prevent the FCC ...
Blog Coverage
August 27, 2008 DEMOCRATS ENDORSE EXPANSION OF UN POWER
The Broadcaster Freedom Act (HR 2905) would prevent the FCC from unilaterally imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. The Democratic platform, in short, calls for more and bigger government on the domestic and international ...
August 25, 2008 Monday, August 25, 2008
413-423 â Frank Wright, president of the National Religious Broadcasters (nrb.org), with an update on congressman Mike Pence's (R-IN) HR 2905, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act," that will stop the Democrats from bringing back the Fairness ..
Source: Frank Pastore Show Run Sheets
August 21, 2008 Dr Ron Paul Co sponsers bill to prevent "fairness doctrine"
Dr. Paul has co-sponsored HR 2905 , a bill from Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana to prevent the enforcement of a âFairness Doctrine,â and I urge you to contact your representatives and tell them to co-sponsor this bill if they have not ...
85 more posts...
See most useful blog posts
Information made available by:
Rating Filter: 5
(Close help)
Comments
(Close help)
The Fairness Doctrine is a direct violation of the First Amendment which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDON OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Capital letters for emphasis)
The Fairness Doctrine is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDON OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Capital letters for emphasis)
There is no such a thing as a right or freedom to broadcast on the television and radio bands of the Public Airwaves: not in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Law, is there a right or freedom to broadcast on the radio and television Public Airwaves.
If you mistakenly think you have such a right, then set up a transmitter and start broadcasting: you will be stopped, fined, maybe even arrested... you need an FCC License to broadcast on the Public Airwaves.
Requirement of a License, is proof that there is no right or freedom, to do the Licensed thing.
VOTE NO on H.R.2005, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES DE-REGULATION ACT.
HR 2905 does not de-regulate the airwaves. It restricts the government from requiring licensed broadcasters to offer opposing viewpoints on controversial topics.
Unlike in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when their were only three national broadcast networks and limited commercial radio. In the 21st century, there are many opportunities for differing opinions to be brought forward to the public.
The Internet, Satellite Radio and TV and expanded cable TV exist today that were not available at the time the Fairness Doctrine was enacted and regulated broadcasters.
This site is an example of media that can address diverse opinions and debate the value of legislation.
The Fairness Doctrine is outdated and unnecessary in today's broadcast environment. This bill will allow the commercial marketplace to decide what is offered to the public not some government regulator who may have his own agenda.
Ask your congressman to endorse passage of HR 2905.
rjwh1ster:
H.R.2905 prohibits the Regulations of the Fairness Doctrine: to prohibit a Regulation is De-Regulation...
you make a twisting evasion, where you say "It restricts the government from requiring licensed broadcasters to offer opposing viewpoints on controversial topics"...
that's the same as saying it De-Regulates the EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME provisions of the FCC Regulatory policy known as the Fairness Doctrine.
That's what H.R.2905 does... that's a De-Regulation of the Public Airwaves.
You speak of a previous "limited" availabilty, of broadcast networks and commercial radio:
That is not the limitation that requires our need for the Fairness Doctrine...
the limitation is not in the number of channels you watch or listen to, but in the number of broadcasters who hold the power to broadcast to the American People.
In that regard, the broadcast spectrum is more limited than it has ever been, more exclusive of the American People (to broadcast for themselves) than ever...
I do not have any opportunity to have my political opinions on the Public Airwaves, nor does anyone I know: is that a Fair use of a Public Resource?
Why do bradcasters alone, who hold rare and limited FCC Licenses, have this power to broadcast their political opnions on the Public Airwaves, but 99.9 percent of the American People (the Public) do not?
The Fairness Doctrine is meant to rectify this "limitation", and not the other one you refer to.
The Internet and this website have nothing to do with it: they do not use the Public Airwaves, and therefore do not require a License, and do not come under the jurisdiction of the FCC and its Regulations, as broadcasters do...
it's about broadcasting and the FCC: it has nothing to do with the Internet.
The Fairness Doctrine is more necessary now than it has ever been: its unilateral repeal (without Congressional approval) is the reason for the present tight and privately-controlled consolidation of the broadcast media (down from about 30 different corporations holding the majority of those FCC Licences in 1987, when the Fairness Doctrine was De-Regulated, to just five now)...
It is the reason the Public Airwaves are being used at present by those five companies (Time-Warner, Disney, GE, News Corp., and CBS) to influence the political opinions of the American People.
That's a problem (if you don't think so, then think IRAQ)...
But seeing as those broadcasters and their Licenses come under the jurisdiction of the FCC and its Regulations, then we have a solution:
The Fairness Doctrine.
Vote NO on H.R.2905, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES DE-REGULATION ACT.
Dem02020:
The removal of enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine ( in 1987) has nothing to do with the Mergers of Media Sources and FCC licenses. The Fairness Doctrine if reinstituted would restrict views being expressed on the airways. Controversial topics and political issues would not be addressed for fear of equal time requirements. Topics like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, global warming would not be expressed. This would lead to less interaction between the public and their government representatives. It is the grass roots call for action from the local radio broadcasters that give people the impetus to inform their Representative or Senator of their opinion on pedning legislation.
The broadcast television networks "news" reports are so biased they should have a truth in labeling journalism standard that could be invoked when the news lacks balanced coverage. However, if a program is offered as opinion and it does not violate other regulatory standards for decency, let the marketplace of viewers decide if the program should continue not some bureaucrat demanding equal time for an opposing opinion.
The broadcast networks make their money based on advertising which is based on viewership. If people don't watch advertisers won't pay.
Vote YES on HR 2905 to allow programming and opinions to flourish.
When Reagan's FCC unilaterally repealed (without Congressional approval) that part of the FCC's Regulations known as "The Fairness Doctrine", it was an act of de-Regulation: it had the disasterous effect of turning FCC Licenses (especially small market radio) into powerful political tools.
Without the provisions of EQUAL TIME (in the broadcasting of political opinions) and REPLY TIME (for broadcasting personal attacks) as part of the FCC's Regulations of the Public Airwaves, those Licenses to use that Public Resource were transformed into powerful privately held and used broadcast platforms, to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People.
I just described small market talk radio and Fox News Channel to you: and they could not be what they are today (powerful political tools to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People, across those People's own Public Resource the Public Airwaves, by way of an FCC License)... this could not have happened were not the EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME provisions of the Fairness Doctrine unilaterally repealed by Reagan's FCC.
That act of de-Regulation is the reason today, why the Public Airwaves have become the private and powerful political platform that it has become, for a select few and privileged broadcasters.
It is a serious threat to our Democracy, and it is too powerful and too much an abused privilege of the use of a Public Resource: we should ever have allowed these broadcasters this much private influence over our political opinions (think BUSH and IRAQ).
As a matter of fact, we did not allow these FCC Licenses to be transformed into this powerful and abused political tool: our agents in Congress were never allowed their or our input in the matter, when Reagan's FCC unilaterally repealed the Fairness Doctrine.
But this serious problem is easy to fix: return the EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME provisions of the Fairness Doctrine to the FCC's Regulatory policy.
By Act of the upcoming 111th Congress, or by Executive Order of the 44th President, bring back to our Public Airwaves the Fair and Balanced Fairness Doctrine to FCC Regulations: bring back the American People's input and participation in the use of that precious (not available to you and I) and privileged (not a right) Public Resource, the Public Airwaves.
And in the meantime, stop the greedy and selfish power grab that broadcasters make of our Public Property the Public Airwaves: stop those broadcasters and their paid minions in Congress: stop them from trying to pass an Act of Congress that de-Regulates our Public Airwaves by Congressional Act...
SAY NO and VOTE NO on H.R.2905, the Public Airwaves De-Regulation Act.
Dem02020-
Like most of you on the left you have a distinct myopia when it comes to truth.
" The Fairness Doctrine is a holdover from the days of scarce media outlets. When the FCC issued the Fairness Doctrine in the 1940s, it justified the regulation on the grounds that there were only a scarce number of broadcast stations across the country. Today there are over 14,000 broadcast radio stations, numerous satellite radio stations and internet radio streams, over 10 million blogs, internet video websites like YouTube, and podcasts. The scarcity justification that once was used to validate the need for the Fairness Doctrine does not hold true in today’s 24-hour news environment. "
The "Fairness Doctrine" was not imposed by congress so President Reagan didn't need their approval to get rid of it. The FCC put it in place as a rule in the 1940s so it is a beaurocratic tool not a congressional edict.
" In 1974, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the Fairness Doctrine inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate in Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Torino. Twenty-three years ago, in FCC v. League of Women Voters, the Court went further and concluded the Fairness Doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate and, as a result, the FCC overturned it."
Now you have the facts not your heartfelt fantasy.
A narrow group of BROADCASTERS (with private commercial and political interests) use the precious Public Resource of the Public Airwaves (precious, as in FCC Licenses that you and I do not have or could ever receive), and they use the privilege of BROADCASTING to the American People (privilege, as in there is no right to BROADCAST on the Public Airwaves) to do more than just sell their junk and crap to the American People: they then also broadcast 24/7 their own private political opinions, to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People; and they do this with those Licenses to the exclusion of all other political opinions (as though they think they own the Public Airwaves they BROADCAST on, and can do what they like with them).
And if those BROADCASTERS are going to broadcast their political opinions to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People (and those BROADCASTERS don't have to do that you know; they can just stick to selling junk and crap), then they should allow EQUAL TIME in the public broadcasting of their political opinions, and REPLY TIME in the public broadcasting of their personal attacks.
Because those Public Airwaves are not their property in the least, but are a Public Resource that they are merely Licensed to use.
The EQUAL TIME provision of FCC Regulations, in the broadcasting of political opinions, and the REPLY TIME provision in the broadcasting of personal attacks, should be applied and enforced today, in the exact same manner as they were by the FCCs and during the administrations of, Presidents ROOSEVELT and TRUMAN and EISENHOWER and KENNEDY and JOHNSON and NIXON and FORD and CARTER, and yes REAGAN too, up until the time the old fool yeilded to greedy politically power-mad broadcasters, by unilaterally de-regulating (without Congressional approval) our Public Airwaves.
The hacks stooges mouthpieces and minions of the broadcasting industry and of its ownership, act as though the EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME provisions of FCC Regulations are something new and untried, radical and innovative, and some strange uncharted uncertain course.
The EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME provisions of FCC Regulations go all the way back to President ROOSEVELT, and were FCC Regulation through all those Presidents I mentioned, and through all their administrations and all their FCCs.
The EQUAL TIME and REPLY TIME provisions of FCC Regulations: If they were good enough for Gen. EISENHOWER, then they're good enough for me.
This is such non-sense. It was never going to come back. This is just the work of the radical evangelibots and the money from Millionaires like Benny Hinn et. al who have made a killing as televangelists...zZzzzZzzZZ
The Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair! It is amazing to me the timing of this debate...right before this election. The Conservative voice is very popular on the radio, with it's LISTENERS. Those who don't like it can tune into a different station.
So if the Fairness Act were to pass, does that mean my Jazz station is now going to have to play an equal amount of Rap, Country, Rock, Alternative, Blues and Classical music? Only seems fair that they apply the Fairness Rules to all airways, right?
Or, maybe leave my rights alone and let me spin the dial to whatever stations I want to listen to. Pelosi is basically telling us that she is smarter than we are and she knows what the public wants. It's just another way to come into our homes and control what we do.
Just wait until Pelosi puts Gov't regulators on your thermostats and tells you what temperatures to keep in your home.
Leave us alone Nancy! We can make up our own minds and listen to whatever we want!
Add A Comment