Just when you thought the world was safe from the “fairness” of special interest groups, please read this carefully. I see this as as another clear shot across the bow that our freedom of speech is under attack.
And I am absolutely furious.
S.Amdt. 591: To encourage and promote diversity in communication media…
To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.
An amendment to S. 160: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.
Offered: Feb 26, 2009
Sponsor: Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Actions: Feb 26, 2009: Amendment SA 591 proposed by Senator Durbin.
Feb 26, 2009: Amendment SA 591 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57 – 41. Record Vote Number: 70.
For more information, see the the official record on THOMAS for S.Amdt. 591.
Text of amendment
SA 591. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 160, to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives; as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following:
SEC. 9. FCC AUTHORITIES.
(a) Clarification of General Powers.–Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:
“SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.
“(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.–The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.
“(b) Construction.–Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.”.
(b) Severability.–Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.
(As printed in the Congressional Record for the Senate on Feb 26, 2009.)
Guess what? This is just a sneaky way to invoke the Fairness Doctrine one more time. Section (B), for all its double negatives, spells it out quite clearly.
Not that any stifling of free speech should even warrant discussion, but I want to know exactly WHO who is going to define “public interest”? U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit (where else?) claims it should be The Federal Communications Commiczars. But for the most part, right now and quite rightly, that definition comes from advertisers spending their money during broadcasts that have viewers in numbers and type that match their target markets.
Which is just as it should be in a FREE MARKET system.
But those who are fearful of and still wish to silence people like, say, Rush Limbaugh because they lack the intelligence to change the dial on their radio station are now running to Big Daddy O to make the change for them. They can’t stand a different opinion, nor can they bear to be criticized. And, of course, in order to continue to roll the country down the hill into the hellhole of Socialism, it’s critical to have real control of the media.
One Washington insider to this stifling of free speech is Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps, conveniently hand-picked by President Obama for this role until a permanent replacement is named. Mr. Copps says he doesn’t support the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but he does think government has a role in enforcing media “diversity.” That role includes re-examining licensing and other regulations for radio stations — including AM stations dominated by talk radio — to make them “more reflective” of public interests.
The fight over the Fairness Doctrine is “yesterday’s fight,” Copps told CNSNews.com earlier this month. But he also stressed the need to make radio broadcasts more “reflective” of the public interest. Copps also said that when markets fail to produce a media which reflects the country’s diversity, government must step in.
“If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of our country, then government has a legitimate role to play,” he said.
This is all so wrong on so many levels. And burying it in the D.C. vote bill is dispicable. Maybe President Obama can’t be bothered to read the bills he signs, but I can assure him that I do.
And I will make sure that I tell everyone just what wickedness this way comes.
Here’s how the Senate vote went. Do you see your elected rep here?
Grouped by Home State
| Alabama: | Sessions (R-AL), Nay | Shelby (R-AL), Nay |
| Alaska: | Begich (D-AK), Yea | Murkowski (R-AK), Nay |
| Arizona: | Kyl (R-AZ), Nay | McCain (R-AZ), Nay |
| Arkansas: | Lincoln (D-AR), Yea | Pryor (D-AR), Yea |
| California: | Boxer (D-CA), Yea | Feinstein (D-CA), Yea |
| Colorado: | Bennet (D-CO), Yea | Udall (D-CO), Yea |
| Connecticut: | Dodd (D-CT), Yea | Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea |
| Delaware: | Carper (D-DE), Yea | Kaufman (D-DE), Yea |
| Florida: | Martinez (R-FL), Nay | Nelson (D-FL), Yea |
| Georgia: | Chambliss (R-GA), Nay | Isakson (R-GA), Nay |
| Hawaii: | Akaka (D-HI), Yea | Inouye (D-HI), Yea |
| Idaho: | Crapo (R-ID), Nay | Risch (R-ID), Nay |
| Illinois: | Burris (D-IL), Yea | Durbin (D-IL), Yea |
| Indiana: | Bayh (D-IN), Yea | Lugar (R-IN), Nay |
| Iowa: | Grassley (R-IA), Nay | Harkin (D-IA), Yea |
| Kansas: | Brownback (R-KS), Nay | Roberts (R-KS), Nay |
| Kentucky: | Bunning (R-KY), Nay | McConnell (R-KY), Nay |
| Louisiana: | Landrieu (D-LA), Yea | Vitter (R-LA), Nay |
| Maine: | Collins (R-ME), Nay | Snowe (R-ME), Nay |
| Maryland: | Cardin (D-MD), Yea | Mikulski (D-MD), Yea |
| Massachusetts: | Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting | Kerry (D-MA), Yea |
| Michigan: | Levin (D-MI), Yea | Stabenow (D-MI), Yea |
| Minnesota: | Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea | |
| Mississippi: | Cochran (R-MS), Nay | Wicker (R-MS), Nay |
| Missouri: | Bond (R-MO), Nay | McCaskill (D-MO), Yea |
| Montana: | Baucus (D-MT), Yea | Tester (D-MT), Yea |
| Nebraska: | Johanns (R-NE), Nay | Nelson (D-NE), Yea |
| Nevada: | Ensign (R-NV), Nay | Reid (D-NV), Yea |
| New Hampshire: | Gregg (R-NH), Nay | Shaheen (D-NH), Yea |
| New Jersey: | Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea | Menendez (D-NJ), Yea |
| New Mexico: | Bingaman (D-NM), Yea | Udall (D-NM), Yea |
| New York: | Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea | Schumer (D-NY), Yea |
| North Carolina: | Burr (R-NC), Nay | Hagan (D-NC), Yea |
| North Dakota: | Conrad (D-ND), Yea | Dorgan (D-ND), Yea |
| Ohio: | Brown (D-OH), Yea | Voinovich (R-OH), Nay |
| Oklahoma: | Coburn (R-OK), Nay | Inhofe (R-OK), Nay |
| Oregon: | Merkley (D-OR), Yea | Wyden (D-OR), Yea |
| Pennsylvania: | Casey (D-PA), Yea | Specter (R-PA), Nay |
| Rhode Island: | Reed (D-RI), Yea | Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea |
| South Carolina: | DeMint (R-SC), Nay | Graham (R-SC), Nay |
| South Dakota: | Johnson (D-SD), Yea | Thune (R-SD), Nay |
| Tennessee: | Alexander (R-TN), Nay | Corker (R-TN), Nay |
| Texas: | Cornyn (R-TX), Nay | Hutchison (R-TX), Nay |
| Utah: | Bennett (R-UT), Nay | Hatch (R-UT), Nay |
| Vermont: | Leahy (D-VT), Yea | Sanders (I-VT), Yea |
| Virginia: | Warner (D-VA), Yea | Webb (D-VA), Yea |
| Washington: | Cantwell (D-WA), Yea | Murray (D-WA), Yea |
| West Virginia: | Byrd (D-WV), Yea | Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea |
| Wisconsin: | Feingold (D-WI), Yea | Kohl (D-WI), Yea |
| Wyoming: | Barrasso (R-WY), Nay | Enzi (R-WY), Nay |
The House version of the D.C. Voting Rights bill has no such amendments, by the way so reconciliation isn’t going to be easy. While I personally believe the D.C. Voting Rights bill is unconstitutional, it is time to let all those elected representatives know that pork under shadowy cover of infringing upon our basic freedoms is still pork and to make sure this illicit “Fairness Doctrine” nonsense goes by the same wayside as the properly-named attempt.