First amendment and fairness doctrine

First amendment and fairness doctrine

Author

Institution

Introduction

Freedom of speech arguably is one of the most valued aspects of in any country irrespective of the setting. However, it also doubles up or comes as one of the most misused freedoms in any country. Unfortunately, many are times when misuse of this freedom leads to disastrous results. This, therefore, underlines the importance of putting restrictions on freedom of speech. This is especially in academic institutions. It goes without saying that recent times have seen an increase in the rate of violence in academic institutions. This violence may be aimed at one individual or a certain race or tribe. On the same note, there are instances where speech amounts to bullying, which is one of the key problems plaguing present-day academic institutions. This underlines the importance of the incorporation of a speech code. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly impossible to control the personal conduct of students especially as pertaining to speech, thanks to the entry of computers, internet and social networks. Nevertheless, it is imperative that rules are implemented pertaining to the speech of students in academic institutions in order to maintain law and order. The following rules would be applicable for students’ conduct online.

Students are not allowed to make hate speech against an individual, a group of people or even a race. Hate speech, in this case, is defined as any statement that creates a hostile, offensive or intimidating educational environment for a certain group of people. The predominant characteristic of this speech is that it causes emotional distress to a certain individual or group of people.

Students are also prohibited from making discriminatory or racist epithets or any other expressive behavior that is directed to an individual or group of individuals, or on separate instances at varied individuals, or even for physical conduct. This is in instances where such epithets, expressive behavior, physical conduct or comments intentionally demean the sex, race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, disability, age, ancestry or national origin of an individual or group of people. Such statements may also create an intimidating, demeaning or hostile environment, which is not conductive for education, university-authorized activities or university-related work.

Students are also prohibited from making statements that aim at inciting other students to commit violent activities. The term incitement is used to describe a speech that may lead individuals who are in agreement with it to carry out immediate violence. There is always danger that a certain speech or statement will convince some or all listeners to carry out an immediate, unlawful action.

Students are also prohibited from making any obscene expression revolving around hardcore depiction of sexual acts. They are prohibited from producing and transmitting obscene material online in the academic environment. Any statement would be categorized as obscene in situations where an average person would find such a statement as appealing to the prurient interest, even in application of contemporary community standards. The work may also be describing or depicting sexual conduct in a way or manner that is patently offensive. This is also the case where the statement, taken as a whole, is devoid of serious artistic, literary, scientific or political value.

As much as the university is the one place where freedom of expression should be guarded jealously, it is worth noting that it is composed of people with different likes, preferences, feelings, values and principles. The enjoyment of all freedoms rests on the ability to allow other people to live their lives without any interruption. The term university revolves around the universality of ideas. It is always imperative that students learn to argue their points in a manner that would not limit the freedom of other people to outline their ideas, as well. In addition, it is worth noting that universities have opened up their doors to people from different races, communities, religions, as well as sexual orientation. It is noteworthy that some of these people are likely to be intimidated, especially in cases where they come from minority groups. This underlines the importance of protecting the minorities and ensuring that they do not suffer simply because they come from minorities. In some cases, students may make inciting statements that may lead to the disruption of academic-work, destruction of property, as well as loss of life. This is even in cases where they have been provided with appropriate channels of airing their views and grievances. Prohibiting the making of inciting statements would go a long way in ensuring that students learn to solve disputes amicably and ensure the protection of property, human lives and ensure peaceful coexistence.

Part Two

Do you think the Fairness Doctrine should be revived, revised, or left dead? Why?

Fairness Doctrine

The media has been one of the most fundamental aspects of any society. This is right from newspapers or print media to the radios and televisions. However, there exists a wide difference between print media and electronic media. Electronic media, unlike the publishing or print media, had an endless supply of tools of the trade. This is because the finite number of available frequencies limited the broadcasting licenses. This led to the enactment of the Fairness Doctrine as the broadcast licenses were relatively fewer than the people who wanted to have them. Licensees, as the trustees of this limited public resource, accepted a certain obligation pertaining to the public interest in exchange for the restricted the scarce public airwaves. The Fairness Doctrine was mainly meant to ensure that the broadcasters would air different views beyond the ones the licensees favored. The Fairness Doctrine incorporated two fundamental elements. It required the broadcasters to allocate some of their airtime to the discussion of controversial matters that were of public interest, as well as air contrasting views pertaining to those matters. It is worth noting that the stations were offered wide latitude on how they could provide contrasting views. They could choose to do it via the editorials, news segments or even the public affairs shows. However, this doctrine was repealed in 1987 during President Reagan’s reign as it was seen as being in conflict with the first amendment. However, there have been questions as to whether the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated, revised or eliminated entirely. In my opinion, the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.

First, I believe that the reinstatement of this doctrine would allow the public to have an enhanced access to information pertaining to controversial issues. The main point behind the enactment of the First Doctrine was to ensure that broadcasters gave airtime to both sides pertaining to controversial issues. It is worth noting that, the doctrine did not require them to offer the two sides equal time but to offer a balanced view pertaining to crucial issues. This prevented one-sided reporting especially considering that the airways and programs were limited. Unfortunately, this is something that is lacking in today’s media industry. This has led to a poorly informed people, something that affects their decisions especially pertaining to political matters. There are still some people who cannot access cable networks, in which case they can only get information from the same channels that have certain individuals presenting warped ideas and point of views. Unfortunately, the absence of this doctrine makes such people give incorrect information as they would not need to defend their views.

In addition, this comes as one of the ways of preventing personal attacks and disingenuous information from being broadcast, which has been the norm in the media. Research shows that there has been an increase in personal attacks and misinformation in mainstream radio since the repealing of this doctrine. It is worth noting that these have resulted in mass misinformation, as well as deaths of individuals against who the broadcasts had suggested action. The reinstatement of this doctrine would guard against broadcasts that may polarize the people.

Lastly, it is worth noting that the foundation of this doctrine was the notion of “spectrum scarcity”. The notion underlines the physical restriction of airwaves, which then leads to the restriction the number of stations that are available. It is worth noting that the maintenance of limited airwaves is done in the public interest. In essence, the doctrine underlined the fact that the airwaves are not private property but a public resource. It reaffirmed the congressional mandate that television and radio has to be maintained as the general public’s medium for free speech, rather than an outlet for serving the private or personal interests of its licensee. It is worth noting that licensees are trustees of limited public resources, in which case they accept a certain obligation pertaining to the public interest, in exchange for the restricted utilization of the limited public airwaves.