Fairness Doctrine and Regulation of Bloggers?

State of Washington regulators are discussing whether on-line political activism is lobbying, and possibly forcing bloggers to register as lobbyists.  This is a scary proposition for anyone using the Internet as a method to get their message out.  Our society is based on a free flow of ideas, free flow of goods and services in the marketplace, and other freedoms. 

This regulatory discussion is taking place at the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC).  It is interesting to note that letters to the editor, and regulation of talk radio are exempt from PDC regulation.  It seems that the PDC is trying to determine who is and who is not a member of the media; that being the criteria they want to use to regulate political activities. 

NEWSFLASH!  The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clarifies our natural right of free speech and prohibits “…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”.  Notice, that freedom of speech is guaranteed to the people and the press.  It does not matter if one is a member of “the media”.  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  In addition, the Washington Constitution covers freedom of speech in Section 5, stating “Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”  Notice that this right is for each person and is not dependent on whether one is a member of “the media”.

In other news, discussion of the so-called “fairness doctrine” is being brought up again.  This discussion is most prominent among conservative talk radio hosts, who as a group, stand to lose the most if this regulation is brought back.  In the Daily Sun News, Corey Russell recently wrote a column where he blasted this idea as fear-mongering by right-wingers.  Mr. Russell, please take note that it is not only a concern for right wing talkers.  Ed Schultz, a left wing, “progressive” talk show host is very excited by the possibility of the Obama administration putting the fairness doctrine back into force.  Naturally, radio stations would have to carry programs like his, and drop conservative talkers in the process.  This is not how a free marketplace works.

Wikipedia’s entry on the fairness doctrine documents House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s support of the fairness doctrine saying:

On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who represents most of San Francisco, California) told reporters that her fellow DemocraticRepresentatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied “Yes.”

The fact that prominent politicians, talk show hosts, and activists are discussing the fairness doctrine should be seriously considered.  Mr. Russell seems to think that only Sean Hannity thinks this will be an issue.  He could not be more wrong.  The Federal Communications Commission did the right thing 20 years ago when they repealed the fairness doctrine.  Political discussion on the airwaves, and especially on the radio, has flourished.  In Washington, the PDC needs to stop talk of regulating political discussion on the Internet.  These types of regulations have a chilling effect on free speech, and can be abused by politicians to stifle opposition to their policies.

The Heritage Foundation has a discussion about the fairness doctrine on their main page.  In 2007, a Heritage blog piece was posted, which you can read here.

The News Tribune has an opinion piece about the PDC’s upcoming meeting to discuss Internet regulation entitled Extending Lobbying Rules To Bloggers Would Stifle Debate