I 100% believe that when most people say "Restore the Fairness Doctrine", they're simply trying to find a way so say "Shut down media outlets that share views I don't like" without coming out and saying so. I get it. I can't stand FoxNews either. But the 1st Amendment is still extremely important.

Who wants to tell 'em?

I don't know if Vinny was mocking someone (the post that was quoted was "blocked") or being serious, but someone is making a very bad take.

I always have to check and see if they're replying to Tom, because if I don't I'd likely mistake it as a serious take! 😂

Yeah, let's just make up history.

Trump's a fucking dummy.

Who were no doubt correct if they told you the FD didn't do all that much. Because....well....it didn't.

It legally can't be, so....

Rule of social media memes: Assume phony or erroneous until proven otherwise.

Check out Mr. Big Brain here. 😂

RESTORE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! THE GOVERNMENT MUST POLICE THE MEDIA TO REQUIRE TRUTH AND BALANCE! AND LETTING THE GOVERNMENT DEFINE THOSE TERMS AND ENFORCE ACCORDINGLY WOULD BE TREMENDOUS!

Oh, the melodrama.

Re-post = "Good Fairness Doctrine / FCC take"

The Fairness Doctrine never did anything to separate fact from propaganda, and it can't apply to non-broadcast (use of the public airwaves) content without violating the 1st Amendment. Outside of that: great idea!

Compelled speech = "democratic ideals"? Uh-huh.

In no way was "equal time" part of the Fairness Doctrine when it came to ideas and positions on policy.

So forcing stations to platform vaccine deniers after a report on vaccine efficacy would be cutting down on misinformation? OK. Sure.

This picture is wildly inaccurate....like "Paul Revere shows us the Boston Massacre" inaccurate. Stop sharing it.

That's....not what the Fairness Doctrine did at all.

The Fairness Doctrine didn't mandate "discussions". The "rebuttal", if you want to call it that, didn't have to be at the same time or even on the same program. Often it was aired as part of a 5:30 Sunday AM "community affairs" show.

The Fairness Doctrine's demise has pretty much nothing to do with this.

"I don't like what some people say on the radio or TV! BAN THEM!!!!"

Yeah, haha....me neither.

Correlation =/= Causation Oops..my bad: CORRELATION =/= Causation

It required "some time" not a "fair presentation"

I learned today that the Fairness Doctrine allowed for criminal charges.

Dummy (Seal Team 6) never did respond. I am guessing the case he's thinking of here is Trust Me v. Bro (2014)

"Fact is" 😂

What, exactly, would the Fairness Doctrine do about this? Answer--absolutely nothing.

This would be unconstitutional. See Red Lion v. FCC and several subsequent SCOTUS decisions.

Compelled speech does indeed violate the 1st Amendment.

Cable doesn't use the airwaves.

Murdoch didn't need citizenship to own a cable outlet, and Presidents don't grant citizenship: Rupert had been in the US for several years before obtaining that.

Arrogant and dead fucking wrong remains my favorite social media trope.

I'm sorry, what?

There are lots of things to criticize Reagan about, but this "Fairness Doctrine begat FoxNews" narrative just ain't one of 'em.

Nope. It didn't.

The Fairness Doctrine did not prohibit misinformation.

Trusting the government to enforce truth always works out so well.

Causation v. correlation, once again.

The Fairness Doctrine did nothing to enforce journalistic standards.

"Radio stations gave equal time". 🙄

Half of this tweet just beamed in from 1986 #Megadittos

The take isn't all bad, but it implies blame to the Fairness Doctrine, which just isn't the case.

The Fairness Doctrine states that for every Boston song on your Classic Rock station, you must play either Muskrat Love or Starland Vocal Band. This is why satellite radio was invented.

Because it would be, by current legal precedent, a 1st Amendment violation.