Fairness Doctrine Revisited

Fairness Doctrine

Stanley L Zebell

Senator Charles Schumer(D-N.Y.) on Tuesday, in an interview on Fox News Fox News defended the attempts to reinstall the Fairness Doctrine (See the complete discussion here). In his attempt to justify the government’s presumed mandate to regulate public speech, Schumer is taking the approach that if the government has been allowed to regulate the public broadcast in the case of pornography, then the government should have the right and authority to regulate broadcast exclusions in additional flavors.

Senator Schumer is digging a hole that may not be easily refilled in using this justification to forward his argument.

The Fairness Doctrine, introduced through FCC regulation in 1949, requires that the holders of broadcast licenses present controversial subject matter of public importance in such a way that all sides are equally addressed. On it’s surface this is a good policy, allowing for “fairness” in presenting to the American public information necessary for them to make responsible decisions. However, as with a self-serve news market, where is the need? If you are relying on only one outlet to access your information, the fault is yours and nothing the government dictates will change this. As far as a conservative monopoly is concerned, the three other mediums of Internet, television and print far out-weight any so-called conservative bent in radio.

Senator Schumer’s insistence that regulating pornography is akin to regulating political speech, regardless of how biased this speech may be, may backfire on the powers that attempt regulating it. The First Amendment of the Constitution is quite clear:

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.

Any attempt to associate pornographic depictions as free speech with reference to constitutionally protected political speech may just open the door to denying ANY regulation of either. In which case, Larry Flint will find his greatest alliances with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly.

From the "Are You Serious" File

 

 

 

 

Technorati Tags: Fair Use,Jones Day,Public Citizen,Trademark,Copyright

This has been brought to my attention thanks to the good people at CitizenVOX.org. It seems the legal beagles at the Jones Day Law Firm, a multinational conglomerate, has taken it upon themselves to cry foul to the US District Court for Northern Illinois by suing BlockShopper.com, a site devoted to providing information for prospective real estate clients, for –get this– diluting the firm’s trademark by using its name and a link to their site in a post. The link from blockshopper.com simply reported that an attorney with the firm purchased a house in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. The purchasing information is a public record. The Jones Day web site is a public web site. All this information is in the ether or the Cook County IL Record Information Services.

Paul Alan Levy, from the Public Citizen Consumer Law and Policy Blog, which details additional actions Jones Day have taken against Internet-based commentators, states that: "… appears that Jones Day is a serial abuser of the trademark laws to suppress commentary that it does not like.  Bullies like this need to be resisted.  We can only hope that Judge Darrah gets past Jones Day’s reputation and gives fair consideration to the First Amendment and the pure silliness of the trademark claim."

According to the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, "dilution by tarnishment" is defined as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark. Further, the following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection: Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, including use in connection with advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner; all forms of news reporting and news commentary; any noncommercial use of a mark.

What is more disturbing than the fact that the gentlemen in charge of this legal firm failed Constitutional Law, is that the suit has actually gone to trial, resulting in a restraining order against BlockShopper.com from linking to Jones Day until the suit can be settled. It seems Judge Darrah, presiding over the case, failed to read the memo from Washington explaining to letter of the law when it pertains not only to what Trademark Dilution is, but also was it is not.

I may not be a legal scholar, which puts me in the same category as the directors of Jones Day, however I do know something of the rules for Fair Use and the articles of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Internet linking is akin to citation of sources. Without meaningful citation of sources the Internet, already suspect from an over-abundance of spammers, frauds and charlatans, would become a useless tool for meaningful research and discourse. With the Internet, a link is posted to the site in question and the reader is allowed to draw their own conclusions pertaining to the post. This is the ideal situation, as opposed to having all news and information force fed and filtered through the traditional media outlets. Unfortunately, this is also a threat to those people and organizations that believe they can still function in the shadows as they have since their inception.