American Vet wrote:
Actually, quite the opposite. Thanks for your opinion.....
But feel free to explain how free speech is suppressed today. I look forward to your input..
It was very difficult for Reagan and his administration to remove the act, but on the other hand it would be even more difficult to revive it. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/612934
While today the Fairness Doctrine is associated with names like Rush Limbaugh, who was among its beneficiaries, this article brings to the forefront the names of Mark Fowler and Dennis Patrick, the chairmen of the FCC who presided over the process of repealing the doctrine. The research for this paper includes interviews with Fowler and Patrick and other principal actors who uniquely illuminate the story of repeal. The research also includes a review of FCC documents, including more than one hundred letters from various parties in 1984–85 that provide insight into positions and interests on both sides.
This research examines the role of the FCC chairmen as political entrepreneurs confronting challenges in the institutional environment and assuming the “risk” associated with dissenting from some in their own party. Although Fowler and Patrick served under a president who supported repeal, they ultimately required “cover” from the Supreme Court to change Fairness Doctrine policy. The story evaluates their success according to criteria associated with successful political entrepreneurs, including reputation, bureaucratic autonomy, and risk. It critically assesses to what extent their achievements were hindered by forces of opposition from their own party and facilitated by opinions of the courts. [End Page 376]
This is what most Dems think and support on the free speech position.. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech
Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”
—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut
Freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, and petition: This set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away.
The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLU’s mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. The organization’s work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.
Almost a century later, these battles have taken on new forms, but they persist. The ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project continues to champion freedom of expression in its myriad forms — whether through protest, media, online speech, or the arts — in the face of new threats. For example, new avenues for censorship have arisen alongside the wealth of opportunities for speech afforded by the Internet. The threat of mass government surveillance chills the free expression of ordinary citizens, legislators routinely attempt to place new restrictions on online activity, and journalism is criminalized in the name of national security. The ACLU is always on guard to ensure that the First Amendment’s protections remain robust — in times of war or peace, for bloggers or the institutional press, online or off.
Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone.