The Fairness Doctrine Was Terrible for Broadcasting and It Would Be Terrible for the Internet

Skepticism of big tech companies is surging on both sides of the political spectrum, from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren calling for breaking up Amazon to Republican Senator Josh Hawley advocating rules that would prohibit online viewpoint discrimination. This wave of techno-progressivism finds its latest expression in Slate journalist April Glaser ’sarticle, “Bring Back the Golden Age of Broadcast Regulation.”Glaser argues that the problems of internet discourse —eg hate speech, haphazard content moderation, and conspiracy peddling—are so trenchant that government intervention is warranted. She calls for applying the rules that once governed mid-twentieth century radio and television broadcasting to the internet, the most important of which was the mand ate that broadcasting be done in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” as laid out in the 1934 Communications Act. Inspired by that mandate, reform-minded progressives at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, which required broadcasters to provide multiple points of view when discussing political disagreements.Glaser ’s proposal is light on details about how exactly broadcast rules would be adapted for the internet, but it is heavy on assurances that any such regulations would be “light-touch.” Those who worry that inviting the feds to just “dosomething” could lead to violations of free speech need not be concerned. As Glaser argues, “For ...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs