BETHANY STOTTS
The Obama administration and other liberal proponents of "net neutrality" were dealt a
significant blow
last month when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
decided that 2010 FCC regulations on Internet providers were invalid.
However, conservatives should remain alert to one caveat: the ruling
affirmed a Federal Communications Commission right to regulate the
Internet, leaving open the possibility for more tailored regulations by
executive fiat.
"Analysts say it would be unwise for [internet service providers] to
take initiatives that set off a consumer backlash or public relations
battle, giving Democratic lawmakers an opening to propose new broadband
legislation," reported
Investor's Business Daily.
"While the door might be open for ISPs to seek fees from
bandwidth-gobbling websites, over-reaching could make it more likely
that Congress will step in."
And so, while the "free market" prevails in this court battle between
the FCC and Verizon, this is a tenuous victory, and businesses must
still balance their desire to innovate against the threat of
Congressional intervention. And before the market reacts to the change
in FCC rules, congressional leaders are charging into the breach to
defend the open internet. The "Open Internet Preservation Act" was
introduced by House Democrats on February 3. "The Internet is an open
marketplace where everyone can participate on equal footing,"
stated
Democratic Senator Al Franken (MN) regarding the bill, which also has a
Senate companion. Sen. Franken and the other co-sponsors say they'd
like it to stay that way, and perceive a threat from big business.
Ross Kaminsky, writing for the
American Spectator,
has a different take: "The reason the Internet is one of the most
successful achievements in human history is that it's been almost
entirely unregulated
(other than attempting to prevent already illegal acts like dealing
drugs or distributing child pornography, etc.)" (emphasis added).
"The idea that
anything the FCC would do is likely to
increase innovation is ridiculous on its face," argues the senior fellow
at the conservative Heartland Institute (emphasis in original).
"Tuesday's [court] victory, although in an important battle, must be
seen in the context of a never-ending war against a patient and
determined enemy," he asserts. Particularly, "With Net Neutrality dead
for the time being, I expect renewed focus by the partisan [FCC Chair
Tom] Wheeler on a new version of the ‘Fairness Doctrine' in which the
FCC will work to weaken conservative dominance over talk radio and cable
TV news."
As Accuracy in Media has long argued, a revival of the
Fairness Doctrine
is fully possible under the Obama administration, although it may occur
under the guise of diversity and media ownership rules, or some other
promotion of "media diversity." This makes it all the more disturbing
that the FCC has reportedly launched a $900,000
study in Columbia, South Carolina that will, according to
The Hill, "ask journalists and station owners about their news philosophy and story selection process."
Yet the media has been virtually silent about this study and what it
might mean for the American public's ability to access news without
government interference. The
Daily Caller published an article on the study in late October of last year. Then, in December it published an article questioning
whether the study will actually take place,
given an apparent lack of outreach on the FCC's part. "More than six
weeks after the Federal Communications Commission announced a broad
probe of political speech that raised serious First Amendment concerns,
the city where the program was scheduled to begin has yet to hear from
the Feds," they wrote. "Some FCC watchers speculate that Wheeler does
not share [former acting chair Mignon] Clyburn's interest in the CIN
survey."
If so, this would mark a significant turn of events, especially since
Wheeler himself clung to the survey as a fact-finding mission in his
testimony before the House.
"In order to make that kind of a judgment you have to have facts,"
said Wheeler. "In order to have facts you do studies. And what we did
was, there is a study that has been proposed by a consulting firm that
we were working with, and we put that out for public notice to exactly
get the kind of input that you're suggesting."
Time magazine described Wheeler last year as a top Obama bundler and an Obama "
true believer."
But why did the FCC choose a consulting firm like
Social Solutions International, Inc., which is
"dedicated
to the creation of social and health solutions to improve the welfare
of underserved populations worldwide," according to their website.
"Founded on the values of diversity, social responsibility, and quality,
Social Solutions International's corporate culture is
grounded in the concept of positive change," states their website (emphasis added). These factors may just skew the data the FCC collects.
"The prospect of government-sponsored researchers querying
independent journalists about their news judgment is constitutionally
questionable-and wholly unnecessary," asserted the National Association
of Broadcasters regarding the study last July.
"Although the Commission's stated reason for the report is to inform
the Commission in taking deregulatory action to lower ‘market entry
barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses,' it is hard to
read this and see it for anything other than what it is: Fairness
Doctrine 2.0," asserts a
GOP letter which was sent on December 11, 2013, the day before the aforementioned hearing.
Diversity in media ownership is a core goal of the Obama
administration. "As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the
ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media
outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public
interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum,"
states his
2008 agenda. Obama has also voiced his support for net neutrality.
In mid-2007 the Center for American Progress released a study entitled "
The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,"
a transparent attempt to boost liberal viewpoints on the airwaves
through the manipulation of FCC licenses, which radio stations and other
broadcast entities have to periodically renew in compliance with
regulatory standards. They found that "Quantitative analysis conducted
by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals
that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are
statistically
less likely to air conservative hosts or shows" (emphasis in original).
To make their goal even more transparent, they write: "Ultimately,
these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms
of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of
independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more
choices for listeners,
and more owners who are
responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest." By
diverse programming, they mean more progressive viewpoints. We called
it what it is back in 2008: a nascent
Obama Fairness Doctrine.
This is not the only threat to free speech on the horizon. The Hill
reported last month that "Thirteen House Democrats have proposed
legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on
the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio." Who wants to
guess what they would classify as "hate speech" in the end? Just look at
what we've reported about the
Southern Poverty Law Center, a media go-to for anti-"hate speech" quotations and expertise, for a clue.
Indeed, the enemies of free speech are patient, and those who love
free anything-the Internet, broadcast cable, the radio-must remain ever
vigilant themselves in order to preserve a free society from threats
like these.
No comments:
Post a Comment