Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Fairness Doctrine
Is anyone familiar with it? I've heard rumors about it in the past few years, and that some members of Congress have expressed desire to bring it back. Essentially, the government would mandate that stations give equal air time to political talk on the radio. For instance, in theory, if you have 1 hour of Rush Limbaugh, your station would have to put an hour of Alan Colmes on as well, or something to that effect.
What do you all think?
What do you all think?
0
Comments
So would you be for it if we could somehow have sufficient monitoring management?
Forums for addressing things methodically (i.e., fairly) come and go, but there are no referees policing lawful behavior of its citizens other than when the clock is going in the workplace or on the athletic field. A free society cannot have police skirmishing everywhere and still be free. No, indeed, where would lines be drawn after such tampering with things?
Actually it's not just a First Amendment issue. All radio stations and TV stations are licensed by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). In order to qualify for and keep the license they have to meet certain requirements as laid down by Congress, such as devoting so many hours a week to community service programs (usually aired at 3 AM, but technically meeting the requirement). The fairness doctrine would fall under that domain, not the freedom of speech. There already is a similar requirement in place, I believe, something to do with equal time. That's why the Democrats got air time to respond to Bush's speeches, and vice versa now. It's a license requirement.
Palzang
I am far from being a constitutional historian, Matt, but I am informed that the first time the Supreme Court was seized of a First Amendment issue was in 1919 (Schenck vs US).
I have often wondered - particularly since I heard President Kennedy's "Ask not" Inaugural, whether this wasn't a trick missed by the framers: they listed rights but omitted responsibilities.
This question of rights comes up over and over. Does anyone know a good article or book by a Buddhist writer which addresses the question from the pov of the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. It is clear that 'human rights' are as marked by the Dharma Seals as any other aspect of samsara.
We've been round the philosophical presuppositions which underpin the notion of rights a few times but I am struck by one point you make:
If there is ('probably') no God and the said "God" is deemed to endow us with "rights" then, surely, there are no rights either, save those given (or withheld) by the community assembled?
Regards, Joe
Well, I don't know what philosophical underpinnings are intrinsically involved with the concept of rights, other than the idea of "rightness" (right) or justice. I guess the same would apply to responsibilities. I would definitely find the idea of using the Third Dharma Seal to disprove the real existence of human rights to be utterly tasteless. As to the Noble Eightfold Path, full of "Right," I might be interested in seeing something on that...
I simply cannot perceive as groundless or imagined the idea of individuals or societies having rights that accrue to them in their very natures. As I have stated before on this website concerning rights, they deal with what reasonable people would agree would be proper orderings of things —in other words, what ought to be or what ought to happen in any sphere where we have made a home or encampment.
Perhaps the idea of ought is more of an intuition than something we can explain in systematic terms, but that is because it is gestalt. People know what is right because when they see the wrong they immediately recognize it as evil, or at least grossly indifferent to the welfare of others. As I said here before, if I walk into my bedroom and see a Bear in my bed, I know in no uncertain terms that things are not as they ought to be. That sense of what ought to be in that situation would surely be a real and strong and concrete KNOWLEDGE.
If knowing what ought to be or what should be done is as strong and vivid and precise as all that, which I say it most definitely IS, then these things, these RIGHTS do surely exist! And they are not mere conjectures. Just because you cannot see the electrical energy stored in a battery does not mean there is no energy stored there. You see the proof when you watch the appliance running on its off-shot energies. Same with rights. If someone were to walk into a room at a wedding party and throw something dirty at the bride, you might see some things unfold that to an inexperienced Martain eye might seem like over-extreme reaction.
When people argue over rights, it's not so much that they're trying to test the other fella or the system, but that they've somehow or other excluded the other from the chain of humanity and the bonds of charity.
Palzang
You put your finger on a vital point, Nirvy, although I am not sure about its being "tasteless", by which I take you to mean distasteful, unacceptable - is that right? In fact, I see it as challenging. Buddhist theory presents us with the notion that the Dharma Seals are axiomatic and inherent in samsara. Dependent co-arising teaches us that all that exists is contingent and interdependent. the Rights of the Bill of Rights or the Droits de l'homme et du citoyen or the Universal Declaration or the Human Rights Acts must also be contingent and without 'self'. They must also be impermanent.
Now, dear friend, before you imagine that I am dissing the notion of Rights, let me make it clear that I am deeply disturbed by the idea of their temporary nature.
It is only for the sake of simplicity that I am using the wonderful words of the Bill of Rights, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I wouldn’t want you to think this is any sort of criticism of any particular declaration or legislation anent human rights. I grew up imbued with the words of the French Declaration as part of fundamental belief. The reasons I chose Jefferson’s words are, first, they are simple. There are only three Rights specified, and they were the first ’national’ words rather than philosophical musings.
Secondly, there is so much in this one sentence that reveals underlying assumptions and presuppositions of the whole notion. This was, I imagine, the purpose of the Enlightenment men who wrote and polished them. They were men who used words with great care and we can therefore assume that they were attempting to express as precisely as possible the reasons which validated their declaring independence. We can question and, I would submit, we are expected to test each of these presuppositions.
The construction of this basic argument is cumulative. A first axiom is proposed and is asserted to be 'self-evident', although we, as humble students of the Dharma, have learned that nothing is self-evident. And then we get "all men are created equal". How can anyone who has read any history or a newspaper or watched TV possibly imagine that "all men are created" equal? But let's leave aside the vexed question of equality for the moment because I think there is a problem which the framers could not have foreseen in what is meant by "created"?
And we are now in the area of ontology vs. teleology. I am almost certain that the framers wanted to address all believers and non-believers as they then understood their ideas. The one thing that would unite them was the idea that humans had somehow been ’created’, rather than arising from millennia of evolution. Apart from mavericks like Tom Paine, scientific atheism in its post-Nietzschean form was unknown. The idea that human beings might be no more than an accident along the random path of evolutionary forces and that consciousness may be no more than an epiphenomenon of the neo-cortex had yet to be articulated. In that paradigm, humans are born as they are, equality is not a characteristic of the infant but is an attribution by other human beings, attribution which, for most of human history, has been withheld. Unless we can address this nihilism with more than simple assertion, we shall continue to create “paper tigers” when the Rights are not observed outwith our immediate context, community or nation.
The framers do take responsibility for this statement of faith. They start with “We hold”. It is an invitation to believe along with them and if we are follow the Buddha’s instructions on following the path to liberation we must challenge.
I think it is appropriate, as we confront radically different concepts of the importance or inalienability of these Rights, to try and articulate all the traps they lay for us. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness require active human intervention before they can be achieved. Is that not so? The newborn infant will not survive without food or warmth. Its Right to Life is entirely subsumed into the struggle to survive. Where do we find an indication of any right rather than a random chance to survive other than in the parental instinct, whether arising from the ‘selfish gene’ or elsewhere? A greater percentage of live births now survive than, say, 40,000 years ago (or even 100). Did those infants who died but would have been saved today have less of a ‘Right to Life’? Not in this perspective: they only had less of a chance. So what is actually meant by ‘Right’ in this context?
But it is not only the newborn who depend on others. Each one of us does. The state can, and does, abrogate to itself the right to transcend this right. The death penalty continues to appear to me to be indefensible if we assume that the Right to Life is ‘inalienable’ and sacrosanct. Of course, what is going on here is a confusion between a Right and a Given. It is a Given that all human being will die. It is a Given that all human beings will suffer. This is the very first line written on the very first particle escaping from the Big Bang (or whatever story you like to spin), the First Noble Truth. Thus there is an apparent contradiction: samsara itself denies this first Right. I can also understand that similar caveats exist for the Rights to Liberty (suspended to permit judicial imprisonment) and Happiness (which, I suspect was the hardest Right to name but where Jefferson had to find a third for stylistic reasons).
When we move beyond the Declaration of Independence to the French Revolution through the Universal Declaration to the EU Human Rights Act, the list of human rights begins to expand and comes to resemble a rabbinical debate on a Bible text.
You suggest that people somehow know instinctively how to conduct themselves and what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ but I really cannot agree with you. How many examples do you want of the contrary, that there is no total human consensus nor, as we understand samsara, can there be. As human beings, we have more ability to choose the right foods for ourselves (not much of that!) than to know, by instinct, when the herd-mind is wrong and we are right and the herd-mind is poorly educated in ethics. Herd-mind functions by lynchings and has no regard to these inalienable Rights.
This is why I assert again that they are marked by the Dharma Seals: they have no absolute existence in and of themselves. they are matters of opinion rather than of fact.
That having been said, I prefer a world where people function together according to a set of respectful rules, based on these ideas rather than some of the others which have been tried and are still in place. I will even struggle to find ways of achieving these aspirations for all beings.
Yes, Kind Pilgrim, by distasteful I did mean unacceptable.
I did not, however wish to be understood as believing that people instinctively know how to conduct themselves. That is demonstrably untrue at every level. What I meant was that the sense of right or the sense of wrong was an undeniably powerful force in our lives that is no less substantial than the collection of molecules with which material reality is underpinned. It is a knowledge and a real force that simply cannot be minimized or negated. Not everything you cannot hold in your hands is a mere phantom. I've never touched the moon, yet I feel her pull and know her rule.
The sense of THE OUGHT is no illusion or imagined thing. It is part of the fabric that comprises the substance of our lives.
Is love, then, also unreal, or its opposite fear? Is life unreal and only real the bodies that are swept away or up in it?
I believe that this is dangerous thinking, dangerous because if the wrong people came to power believing this all sorts of mischief might possibly break out.
Human rights are not an abstraction. They are rather more like wheels that turn in us and that also propel us. They're kinda like an inner banking system that posits our hopes and trusts, leading us from handshakes with our neighbors towards our rewards and obligations.
A sense of justice or injustice is the very root of the soul of a person. Please don't tell me that I have no soul.
Palzang
Don't be so racist, Palzang! I can't help it that my folks have no rhythym and can't jump either.:rolleyes:
Now, rights are temporary, as they belong to the people so long as the people have the strength and responsibility to hold them. But, there have been other declarations, such as the declarations of the rights of man, which use similar language. In fact, it seems to me, that if you strip away the deistic language from the Declaration of Independance, you have something in line with Buddhist thought. That people are responsible for their own choices, and that it is inherently wrong for one person to dominate another. Yes I'm aware of the inherent hypocrisy of many of the founding fathers, but what the US is today wouldn't be if it weren't for those men and the ones that followed after. Such things are of a temporary nature, but inevitably, when you give people freedom, they excercise that freedom, adn it will evolve. One of my biggest fears is that someday I wake up and find those "rights" are truly gone, and I have to follow "Big Brother's" way.
Well, I don't have any rhythm and can't jump, so nobody should be able to!
Palzang
I simply want to know this...do you think the government should regulate radio so that there is equal time given to opposing points of view? Yes or no. And then why?
For instance....
I say no because it is specifically targeted at silencing conservative talk radio. Nobody is calling for this to be done to television, newspapers, or god forbid, universities. On top of that, it's simply impractical. If I have a talk show host who is a rabid libertarian, am I obliged to give equal time for a communist point of view as well? It's just silly and the government has no business regulating political talk.
Not only silly, but also the Government does not have the Right to curtail the freedom of a person lawfully to speak his or her mind and take as much time to do so as he needs.
My Why: Forums for arguing all sides are things that can be arranged from time to time as interested parties choose to do so. The government is charged with protecting lives and property, not for policing the thoughts of its citizens.
every tyranny has limited and, ultimately, banned free speech. To me, such limits smell of the bonfire: book burnings leading to people burnings.
I think that if the Democrats in Congress choose to try and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, it will hurt their own cause. For one thing, no matter how good their intentions, it is a stupid idea. Personally, I am not entirely happy with how our public airwaves are managed by the FCC, but if a radio station wants to broadcast conservative talk shows because that is what brings in the listeners and advertising dollars, then forcing them to broadcast liberal talk shows will potentially cost that station listeners and advertising dollars. This would obviously hurt those stations. In addition, pushing the Fairness Doctrine will backfire because Republicans will frame this as an attack on free of speech. Public opinion almost never sides with those who are perceived to attack free speech.
That being said, I can certainly understand how some people see this as a good idea in that these are supposed to be public airwaves and having the majority of corporate radio stations flooding the airwaves with only one political viewpoint regarding controversial issues is problematic for those who want their own opposing viewpoints to be heard. Because liberal talk shows are not as profitable for radio station in predominately conservative markets, their views are simply not heard, or even censored by conservative-leaning station owners. In theory, it sounds good to propose that a broadcasters coverage of controversial issues should be balanced and fair. Even so, I still do not think it is a good idea for a variety of other reasons.
One of the main reasons is that I want more than just conservative and liberal (i.e. Democratic and Republican) views to be expressed on our public airwaves simply because they have the most money, a wider audience, etc. I do not think that any one party or political ideology should dominate the public airwaves, but that can only be remedied by actually opening the public airwaves to the public. Barring that, profitability is the main factor in determining what programming will be available on stations in any given market. In general, stations play whatever they think will bring in the highest ratings, which in turn will bring in the most advertising dollars. Forcing stations to give equal time to both will just cause friction, potentially reduce ratings and advertising dollars and eventually turn public opinion against whomever is responsible.
In my opinion, the most pragmatic solution is for liberal talk shows to improve their shows and get better hosts. The better the shows and hosts, the more listeners will tune in to those shows. The more popular these shows and hosts become, the more stations will pick them up. Nevertheless, I think that the way the FCC regulates our public airwaves needs to be reviewed. I also think that there should be more impartial public service broadcasting-type stations and/or programming made available because no matter how popular these shows and hosts become, many stations in traditionally conservative areas will still not pick them up because their listeners are not interested in them, or their conservative station owners are biased against them, etc.
Jason
Jason, although you addressed this to Knight of Buddha, I'd like to comment, if I may.
I think it's also unfortunate that noisy people dominate public discussions, but that's just the way things work, by their very natures. Quiet people just don't make a lot of noise and go unheard by most (if not all) theme-oriented listeners. But that is not to say that quiet people have nothing to say. Sometimes the quiet ones have learnt lessons which the proponents of narrow arguments could never appreciate for lack of understanding. Indeed, some people just have no rational soul at all but are run amok with their emotions, steered entirely by their strong likes and dislikes.
But just because noisy people oftentimes seem to run the world, that doesn't mean they have any of the right keys to the right doors.
I say not to worry. Ortega said that Humankind has a mission on this earth and that mission is the mission of clarity. On this I pin all my hopes and dreams and don't worry about the diatribes of Rush Limbaugh and the like. I think every time he opens his mouth and speaks he shows his contempt for humanity, his arrogance, and the way not to be. His voice does not, in my view, constitute a stronger case for conservative policies, but diminishes the long-term implications of them.
I am not afraid of free speech and I certainly don't want my government to engage in tyranny trying to "balance" it.
I must say, BTW, that it seems patently clear to me that the "public airways" are already open to and for the public. The real issue is when will the non-NPR stations hone in on more private, honest, reasonable, erudite and conscientious discourse? Don't forget about NPR. Those folks need to be given some credit.
p.s. RUSH LIMBAUGH: Why is not the man in prison? I'm sure that if the president was going by and I yelled out, "Somebody should take this guy out!", I'd be in some pretty hot water. Yet, several years ago when Rush Limbaugh used these very same words on the air nothing at all happened. My jaw still drops...
Only in the sense that they are open to whomever the FCC grants a license.
You are quite right, Nirvy. That is why I became a member of OPB last year.
I used to listen to Rush before I went to school, but I cannot stand him now.
Well, the French are a more civilized people. However, in the "That's Not in the Bible" idolatrous USA, you can only have justice to a point. You may not offend people who see any deviation from norms as an onslaught against their divine right to be divinely deluded. (To be one of the "saved," one must bow down the knee of one's mind to prejudice and narrowness and must not search for the truth. What would that accomplish?)
I say give the pedagogues enough rope and they'll hang themselves. It would be colossal folly to try to balance their egotism with more moderate truths. I rather enjoy watching people make fools of themselves.
At any rate, I am confident that truth and harmony will prevail in the end. I fret not over troublemakers, knowing that they, too, serve a good purpose in the end.
What is the point of arguing with the deluded —unless you just enjoy riling people up?
"SAY not the struggle naught availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain
...............
And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright."
Despite everything and the increasing pressure on freedom of speech, I remain optimistic.
At the moment, my 'academic' study (as against lectio divina or reading novels) is around the Enlightenment and, in particular, the early esprits forts ('atheists') among the Philosophers, the 'radical Enlightenment'. The more I learn (and remember), the more certain I am that the great experiment in government that is the USA is not, as so many now pretend, a 'Christian' foundation. It may even be that those avowing some sort of deism/theism were closer to post-Cartesian doubt than to 'faith-based' notions. And a republic founded on reason may be more resiliant and deeply subversive of all attempts at counter-Enlightenment.
Yes, this should be obvious from article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
Jason
'Reality' TV and the 'XXX Idol' franchise serve to challenge my contention that popular culture has any use or value.