H.R.226 - Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009

To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. view all titles (4)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. as introduced.
  • Popular: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Official: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 32 total comments.

  • mcgoo 01/15/2009 5:55pm

    If people don’t like what they’re hearing on a talk radio channel, change the channel. Same with the Internet, people have the choice of clicking through to another site.

    More important than reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine, is putting a cap on media ownership. MSM control in the hands of few owners, enables them to exert undue influence, as a majority of citizens rely on the MSM for their worldview.

  • slinkymaster 01/19/2009 2:43pm

    Why would anyone want to give the FCC more power to censor people? All this will do is allow whoever is running the FCC to declare that their opposition has an “unfair” advantage. Just because Rush and Hannity are big in talk radio today doesn’t mean that the situation might be the opposite in the future. People are so short sighted…

  • Comm_reply
    BartelsK 05/02/2009 9:26am

    You might want to re read the text of the bill. It does not give the FCC more power. It reduces their power to force broadcasters to air progrmming that they dont agree with.

  • donopolis 01/30/2009 5:20am

    I may not like what someone has to say, but I will fight for their right to it, however, I shouldn’t be forced to listen to it.

  • Comm_reply
    msking 09/08/2009 1:24pm

    No force exerted – Change the channel

  • UserNotLogggedIn 02/09/2009 4:53pm

    If you give the givernment an inch, they’ll take 2 miles.

    Bringing this garbage legislation back basically means the FCC’s commissioners & it’s other internal ladder climbers will have that many more avenues thru which they can further their political agendas.

    It will do nothing good for anyone outside of themselves.

    Look at how some FCC admins recently started spouting opinions in health issues to influence &/or promote certain health related programming. I wouldn’t count on it stopping there.

    Since when does the FCC have authority to form & voice an opinion on anything but FCC business? Since when does the FCC have a stand on anything other than the “7 deadly words” & how to get a piece of billion dollar spectrum auctions? Where does it say in their charter that they’re allowed to influence public opinion regarding anything at all?

    While things at the FCC might be getting better in very recent time, they are still not the highly technically skilled & oriented org of years past. Nowadays their ranks are mostly filled with political ladder climbers vying to “suck-up” to radio spectrum owner/speculator interests for two things in general. (1) To find new & ingenious ways of capitalizing public radio spectrum to fill the Treasury’s coffer & in doing so, (2) create a smoother path for themselves to jump ship from the FCC asap & ride the tides towards bigger & better appointments up the givernment food chain.

    All they’ve been able to accomplish in the last 20 years is cost everyone under their pervue more money, frustration, time, inconvenience(to say the least) & launch a few lucrative civilian careers for prior FCC admins.

    They only enforce their own rules….when…there’s some bucks in it to make Congress look good.

    And these are the people who think they have the qualifications to decide for us what we need & want to see.

    Get out of our lives.

    I"ll decide what I want to see & what I’ll let my kids see.
    I don’t want your morality(ies) inflicted on anyone.

    Just like most of givernment, you’re out of touch with reality.

  • shooter 02/10/2009 8:14am

    @ mcgoo,

    “…If people don’t like what they’re hearing on a talk radio channel, change the channel.”

    That’s beside the point of the effort here. The point is “fairness” and that means liberal talk shows that can’t hack it in the free market. Rather than tell liberal talk show hosts to find an audience (and so far, there is none of any value or consequence), the answer is to censor or eliminate those who are successful in the free market — like Rush, Hannity and Beck. This is fascism, pure simple.

  • Comm_reply
    trbking 03/28/2009 1:09pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    shooter,
    I have no interest in the Fairness Doctrine. We all have a vested interest in fairness. You claim that it’s all about stifling voices like Rush, Hannity, and Glenn Beck. No, not at all. It’s about all of the media in the U.S. being controlled by fewer than 10 C.E.O.‘s that can’t be good no matter what your political views. The fact is that progressive shows that are number one in their market have been flipped to other formats that had ratings so low they can’t be measured. Doesn’t sound like a very “free” market. If your sales force can’t sell ads for the number one show, I think you need a new sales force, not new programming. Fascism, by the way, is the merging of corporate and governmental functions. It seems to me that’s been the last 8 years,rather than the next 8.

  • Comm_reply
    MatadorBID 03/28/2009 7:57pm

    I trust those 10 CEOs to make the right decisions to make a profit more than I trust government to decide what is to be broadcast. Can you cite a specific example of a popular political show that has been taken off of the air for an unpopular one with the opposite viewpoint? As far as fascism goes, the last 8 months have been chock full of it, from both the current and former presidents.

  • kenj0418 02/11/2009 5:09pm

    The fairness doctrine might have made sense when there were 3 networks, all using the public airways. Now we have countless channels and other sources of content on the airways, cable, satellite, the internet, etc.

    The fairness doctrine isn’t needed anymore — Let people decide what they want to watch.

  • echotech 02/16/2009 7:22am

    The Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).’

  • Anonymous 02/18/2009 2:02am

    So thankful someone has stood up for us- “the little people” in congress.

  • NJCentrist 02/22/2009 3:11pm

    From what I read, the reason this bill is being pushed by Republicans is that a return of the fairness doctrine would allow the federal government to intervene in Christian broadcasting and tell them what to air.

    Now, I’m not a Republican, nor am I especially religious. I have never listened to Christian radio or TV in my life. But it’s plain to see that the Fairness Doctrine is a violation of Americans’ right to free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the Broadcaster Freedom Act seems to be an appropriate check on the FCC’s power.

  • Anonymous 03/04/2009 6:17am

    The last thing government needs to be involved in is telling folks what they can talk about. If the Liberal’s aren’t getting a big enough audience maybe it’s because no one wants to listen to their mess!

  • IDPatriot1 03/05/2009 1:36pm

    Media content is a market-driven thing. If one does not like what they’re hearing they can change the channel or the station. Mandating content is an infringement on our freedom of speech.

  • FVRomer 03/09/2009 1:28pm

    “Media content is a market-driven thing.” Sure, the guy who owns the most media outlets gets to tell the public what they should hear. The airwaves belong to we the people, not just Rs or Ds, or the wealthy and influential who have their own agenda which may or may not serve the public interest. The Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated as radio/TV content has become monolithic since the days of Reaganism.

  • Comm_reply
    MatadorBID 03/19/2009 4:12pm

    “The airwaves belong to we the people, not just Rs or Ds, or the wealthy and influential who have their own agenda which may or may not serve the public interest.”

    You forgot to add that it doesn’t belong to the government, which is who the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine gives the airwaves to. The airwaves DO belong to the people right now. The shows with the highest ratings and thus the largest audiences stay on the air. Audiences drive sponsors, not vice versa.

  • anti_theocon 03/19/2009 5:35am

    “The fairness doctrine isn’t needed anymore — Let people decide what they want to watch.”

    I say bring it back, and bring ‘em on! As far as a choice, just being able to turn off the radio is not a good enough choice for Americans! We are beyond that. I don’t want Murdoch and Clear Channel deciding what content I can listen to. Return to community radio. Local owned is where it’s at!

  • amyers68 03/29/2009 2:09pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Change the channel and bust up the monopoly of the MSM

  • tkela 04/16/2009 11:59am

    I know I’m just repeating what everyone else is saying, but here goes…..If you don’t like what you’re hearing then change the channel, turn it off, put in a CD. They can’t pay for air time for liberal talk shows. So what. They have CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc. If we are not careful they are going to slowly take our freedoms away from us. One little thing at a time.

  • SylviaBokor 05/04/2009 4:01am

    The Fairness Doctrine is an infringement of individual rights and should be repealed. The FCC should be dissolved. Government should be cut down to a limited government. Our government has grown into a monster and is devouring our freedom by shredding our individual rights. This is the basic threat to us all, no matter what our political point of view. Vote to prevent renewing the Fairness Doctrine which is completely unfair.
    Sincerely,
    Sylvia Bokor

  • solhls 05/04/2009 1:20pm

    The Fairness Doctrine should not be reinstated. Freedom of speech is one of the hallmarks of a free society, and an inalienable right. There is no such thing as forcing fairness by controlling free speech, except in “Orwellian doublespeak.”

  • auntmame 05/04/2009 2:08pm

    This is a violation of free speech, clear and simple. To force broadcasters to promote an opinion contrary to their own, and call it a “Fairness Doctrine” is, indeed, Orwellian as solhls notes above. I have found that whenever a contraction is used by a politician, it’s not out of ignorance, but to camoflauge his real intent.

  • Comm_reply
    moionfire 09/13/2010 4:39pm

    The fairness doctrine doesn’t force broadcasters to “promote” other opinions. It forces them to present opposing views in order to give people an accurate understanding of other opinions. Using the word “promote” assumes the broadcasters have to agree with every opinion that is presented to the public…

  • auntmame 05/04/2009 2:09pm

    contraction = contradiction

  • ilene2theright1 05/07/2009 6:29am

    Wake up- call, write, fax your congress people- senators with how you feel-
    they work for YOU- let’s remind them!
    And just like some community organizers say
    VOTE Early and VOTE often——— don’t stop at one email- don’t stop at 2-
    Get to know them on a first name basis! I am serious.

  • DianaAmerican 05/10/2009 9:53am

    Amendment I.
    Congress shall make NO Law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the Free exercise thereof; or abridging the Freedom 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.

    This says it all! Any law that the over-powerful in government would pass is a violation of the Constitution of The United States.

    “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”* Thomas Jefferson

  • DMCHIEF 07/18/2009 12:40pm

    can someone please explain how making news organizations broadcast differing viewpoints in addition to their own is a violation of free speech? they aren’t taking away your right to speak your mind, in my opinion it’s beneficial to the american people to have differing viewpoints presented (especially on new issues we may not be aware of upon tuning in) so that we can take both viewpoints into account and make up our own minds. What’s beside the point, News is supposed to be about facts. I imagine it would be hard to broadcast a ‘differing viewpoint’ on something that is factual…oh wait, I forgot, we don’t have NEWS organizations, we have opinionated “Persuasion Stations” masquerading as News organizations. Screw that, journalistic integrity no longer exists, and I think I have an idea why.

  • talons410 07/23/2009 7:28am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    What am I missing here? The 1934 “Fairness Doctrine” made it possible for the FCC to force broadcasters to air opposing views for issues deemed important to the public. The 1987 amendment was to revoke this privilege and return to the broadcasters the right to decide on and air content of their choosing without the fear of penalty; thereby upholding the media’s constitutional rights.

    HR226 would make it impossible for the FCC to reintroduce the “Fairness Doctrine” in the future and hopefully put congressional time to better use.

  • msking 09/08/2009 1:21pm

    “Congress shall make NO Law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the Free exercise thereof; or abridging the Freedom 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. "
    “Congress shall make NO Law … abridging the Freedom of Speech…”
    a·bridge (-brj)
    tr.v. a·bridged, a·bridg·ing, a·bridg·es
    1. To reduce the length of (a written text); condense.
    2. To cut short; curtail. See Synonyms at shorten.
    NO LAW


Vote on This Bill

89% Users Support Bill

662 in favor / 82 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments