I probably should have said “wouldn’t” rather than “didn’t”. It’s grossly out-of-date and would be a gross violation of the first amendment if it were to be tried as people want it to be.
It applied only to “holders of broadcasting licenses”. That is - “old timey television and radio” that was broadcast over the airwaves. The reasoning being that the airwaves are a limited resource (there can only be so many TV and radio stations in a given area) so the government didn’t want a single entity to monopolize all of it with a single voice.
But it wouldn’t apply to the internet, cable TV, or any other modern form of communication. It wouldn’t do anything to Twitter. It wouldn’t even effect Fox News (the cable station) or NewsMax.
The fairness doctrine didn’t do what you think it did.
Mind adding context?
I probably should have said “wouldn’t” rather than “didn’t”. It’s grossly out-of-date and would be a gross violation of the first amendment if it were to be tried as people want it to be.
It applied only to “holders of broadcasting licenses”. That is - “old timey television and radio” that was broadcast over the airwaves. The reasoning being that the airwaves are a limited resource (there can only be so many TV and radio stations in a given area) so the government didn’t want a single entity to monopolize all of it with a single voice.
But it wouldn’t apply to the internet, cable TV, or any other modern form of communication. It wouldn’t do anything to Twitter. It wouldn’t even effect Fox News (the cable station) or NewsMax.