30% of Americans Want "Balanced" Blogging - Cutie Pi writes "In a recent Rasmussen poll looking at the public's attitudes toward a possible revival of the fairness doctrine by the Democrats, a surprisingly large percentage of those polled seek fairness doctrine mandates (originally intended for public airwaves) to cover the Internet as well. It is encouraging that a minority of people feel that way, but Democrats say 'hands-off the Internet ... by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.'"
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Say what??? From TFA, "Fifty-seven percent (57%) say the government should not require websites and blog sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints. But 31% believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary". The remaining 12% aren't sure.
Thirty-one percent??? Wow. In other words, those 31% are in essence saying to me, "Ares, you've got your own blog out there. It is privately run, owned and operated. If you discuss something of a political nature, you must present an opposing view point."
Presumably, those 31% are ignorant of the fact that most blogs aren't written by some member of the news media. Given the number of blog posts I've seen become newsworthy headlines on Slashdot lately, it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. Blogs are quoted as though they are gospel these days; disregarding the fact that many, if not most, are merely personal blogs, stating the personal opinions of the blogger and not the opinions of their employer.
Despite that, given strictly what's in the Rasmussen Report on the subject, 31% of the population think there should be rules regulating blog content as long as its political.
I have a news flash for those 31%: the Fairness Doctrine could exist when it did because television and radio stations are licensed entities. They have a license from the federal government to broadcast a signal in a particular format in a certain segment of the public airwaves licensed exclusively to them for the duration of their license. Because of this, the government can, and in fact does, regulate the content of their broadcasts. Their "freedom of speech" is limited because of a license granted by the government.
The Internet, the blogsphere if you will, is not subject to such a license. My freedom of speech is not subject to a license, rather it is an inherent God-given right, protected by the First Amendment.
It seems to me that in this country, silence is also protected speech. As an individual, running a personal blog on a personal site, funded exclusively by me, it is my exclusive right to allow whatever opinions I choose to allow here. If you don't like it, you can piss right the fuck off.
Blog comments