Editing Fairness doctrine (section)

==Decisions of the United States Supreme Court==
In ''[[Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC]]'', {{Ussc|395|367|1969}}, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, by a vote of 8–0, the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the [[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]. The case began when journalist [[Fred J. Cook]], after the publication of his ''Goldwater: Extremist of the Right'', was the topic of discussion by [[Billy James Hargis]] on his daily ''Christian Crusade'' radio broadcast on [[WLCH (AM)|WGCB]] in [[Red Lion, Pennsylvania]]. Cook sued arguing that the fairness doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.<ref>Tom Joyce: [http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:NewsBank:YDRB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0FAE0731EA2EE1CD&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=11ECDBF131F44C689BB0EDBA11D99EE0 "His call for a reply set up historic broadcast ruling; Fred J. Cook, whose book was attacked on Red Lion radio station WGCB in 1964, died recently at age 92"]. ''[[York Daily Record]]'' (Pennsylvania), May 6, 2003. Retrieved August 17, 2008.</ref>

Although similar laws are unconstitutional when applied to the press, the court cited a [[United States Senate|Senate]] report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time. Writing for the court, Justice [[Byron White]] declared:{{cquote|A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.&nbsp;... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.<ref name=RedLion />}}

The court did not see how the fairness doctrine went against the First Amendment's goal of creating an informed public. The fairness doctrine required that those who were talked about be given chance to respond to the statements made by broadcasters. The court believed that this helped create a more informed public. Justice White explained that, without this doctrine, station owners would only have people on the air who agreed with their opinions. Throughout his opinion, Justice White argued that radio frequencies, and by extension, television stations, should be used to educate listeners, or viewers, about controversial issues in a way that is fair and non-biased so that they can create their own opinions.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia|last=Kramer|first=Daniel C.|title=''Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission'' (1969)|url=https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/117/red-lion-broadcasting-co-v-federal-communications-commission |access-date=November 19, 2020|encyclopedia=The First Amendment Encyclopedia}}</ref> 

In 1969, the court "ruled unanimously that the Fairness Doctrine was not only constitutional, but essential to democracy. The public airwaves should not just express the opinions of those who can pay for air time; they must allow the electorate to be informed about all sides of controversial issues."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine|url=http://donellameadows.org/archives/bring-back-the-fairness-doctrine/|access-date=November 19, 2020|website=The Academy for Systems Change}}</ref> The court also warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered. Justice [[William O. Douglas]] did not participate, but later wrote that he would have dissented because the Constitutional guarantee of [[Freedom of the press]] was absolute.<ref>{{cite web |title=CBS v, Democratic National Committee |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/412/94/ |website=Justia |access-date=18 August 2022}}</ref>

However, in the case of ''[[Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo]]'', {{Ussc|418|241|1974}}, [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[Warren Burger]] wrote (for a unanimous court):{{cquote|Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.}}
This decision differs from ''Red Lion v. FCC'' in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can theoretically face an unlimited number of competitors.

In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not forbid editorials by non-profit stations that received grants from the [[Corporation for Public Broadcasting]] (''FCC v. [[League of Women Voters]] of California'', {{Ussc|468|364|1984}}). The court's 5-4 majority decision by [[William J. Brennan Jr.]] stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the fairness doctrine's limits unnecessary: {{cquote|We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required. (footnote 11)}}
After noting that the FCC was considering repealing the fairness doctrine rules on editorials and personal attacks out of fear that those rules might be "chilling speech", the court added: {{cquote|Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine '[has] the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing' speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case. (footnote 12)<ref>The quotation is from Section III C of ''Red Lion v. FCC'' {{Ussc|395|367|1969}}. Justice Brennan's opinion was joined by Justices [[Thurgood Marshall]], [[Harry Blackmun]], [[Lewis F. Powell, Jr.|Lewis Powell]] and [[Sandra Day O'Connor]]. Dissenting opinions were written or joined by Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]] and Justices [[William Rehnquist]], [[Byron White]] and [[John Paul Stevens]].</ref>}}