Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Describing it as "fake news" is actually correct, in that it is not news, but propaganda to prop up one side while tearing down the other.

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

It seems some people can not understand this FACT you point out. It is disingenuous to even consider these are comparable. The adjectives that come to mind are disingenuous, conflation, hyperbolic, distort.

richardag said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Describing it as "fake news" is actually correct, in that it is not news, but propaganda to prop up one side while tearing down the other.

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

It seems some people can not understand this FACT you point out. It is disingenuous to even consider these are comparable. The adjectives that come to mind are disingenuous, conflation, hyperbolic, distort.

---

Sherill v. Knight established that once the government has opened a forum for the press, the First Amendment protects the right to access that forum. It cannot be revoked on the bases of the press member's viewpoint.

Lying is not a viewpoint. It's 5th column.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Lying is not a viewpoint. It's 5th column.

---

The Executive Branch does not have authority to determine what is or isn't true, and speech that is not true is still protected speech under the First Amendment.

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

HTownAg98 said:

---

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

---

..."Unless our party is in power, and then its pompoms and high fives."

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

---

..."Unless our party is in power, and then its pompoms and high fives."

---

I don't care which side you're on, that's the truth.

And that's why the First Amendment ensures freedom of the press.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Lying is not a viewpoint. It's 5th column.

---

The irony.

MidRatsAg said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Lying is not a viewpoint. It's 5th column.

---

The Executive Branch does not have authority to determine what is or isn't true, and speech that is not true is still protected speech under the First Amendment.

---

i don't think he's telling them what they can or can't say. He's telling them where they can't stand.

MidRatsAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

---

..."Unless our party is in power, and then its pompoms and high fives."

---

I don't care which side you're on, that's the truth.

And that's why the First Amendment ensures freedom of the press.

---

Literally no one is arguing otherwise.

Blue star for stating the obvious.

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Being excluded is being excluded.

1) Being excluded from asking questions while in the room
2) Being excluded from asking questions while not in the room

The only difference is location.

---

Very well said. This, Htown, was the splitting of hairs that I spoke of....

---

Good, then you can both be wrong. As I said earlier, the First Amendment can protect your right to be present in the room and listen. It rarely protects your right to be heard.

---

WTF does being "present in the room" have to do with the First Amendment?

Can you point that out in the Constitution regarding freedom of the press?

---

For ****'s sake. IF A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CREATES A PUBLIC FORUM, THEY CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHO CAN BE IN THE ROOM BASED ON VIEWPOINT. I don't know how to make this simpler for you. And no, it's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but it is in the BINDING CASE LAW. And that's what we have to go by until SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

---

So if IRGC… I mean The Hormuz Letter, wants a permanent seat in the WH briefing room, they have a constitutional right to do so according to HTownAg98 School of Law and Other Bad Takes.

As soon as you understand their is discretion based simply on things like space, credibility, security, etc then you will understand POTUS can do what he is doing.

---

We have court rulings that establish that the press cannot be excluded based on their views, which is what is being considered. Can you reference court case where your opinions are established?

---

It's the US Constitution.

---

Yes, the court cases I've referenced are the interpretations of the judicial system of the Constitution on similar matters to the one we're discussing.

Can you reference a court case where your opinions are established?

---

This was shared earlier. Do these rulings not matter?

If only we had Supreme Court precedents on this exact issue.

Talk to SCOTUS about it.

Houchins v. KQED (1978): The First Amendment does not require the government to give the press access to information or places under government control. It “is neither a Freedom of Information… https://t.co/xX2ns9VdQJ

— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) September 19, 2026

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

---

..."Unless our party is in power, and then its pompoms and high fives."

---

I'm going to make a pretty solid guess that you have zero knowledge of what FIRE stands for. And I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong here. Hint; they've defended a whole bunch of people on the right.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

---

..."Unless our party is in power, and then its pompoms and high fives."

---

I'm going to make a pretty solid guess that you have zero knowledge of what FIRE stands for. And I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong here. Hint; they've defended a whole bunch of people on the right.

---

The press clipping was from ABC, mensa. FIRE was just sharing it.

Which, if the government is opening a forum to the press, is protected by the First Amendment.

YouBet said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

That's not a great argument, because everyone that covers The White House knows you aren't ever guaranteed to be called upon. Karine Jean-Pierre certainly had her favorites, and Karoline Leavitt did as well. Not being called upon is not a violation of the first amendment. Being excluded from the room because you say mean things about the administration is.

---

Being excluded is being excluded.

1) Being excluded from asking questions while in the room
2) Being excluded from asking questions while not in the room

The only difference is location.

---

Very well said. This, Htown, was the splitting of hairs that I spoke of....

---

Good, then you can both be wrong. As I said earlier, the First Amendment can protect your right to be present in the room and listen. It rarely protects your right to be heard.

---

WTF does being "present in the room" have to do with the First Amendment?

Can you point that out in the Constitution regarding freedom of the press?

---

For ****'s sake. IF A GOVERNMENT ENTITY CREATES A PUBLIC FORUM, THEY CANNOT DISCRIMINATE WHO CAN BE IN THE ROOM BASED ON VIEWPOINT. I don't know how to make this simpler for you. And no, it's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but it is in the BINDING CASE LAW. And that's what we have to go by until SCOTUS or Congress says otherwise.

---

So if IRGC… I mean The Hormuz Letter, wants a permanent seat in the WH briefing room, they have a constitutional right to do so according to HTownAg98 School of Law and Other Bad Takes.

As soon as you understand their is discretion based simply on things like space, credibility, security, etc then you will understand POTUS can do what he is doing.

---

We have court rulings that establish that the press cannot be excluded based on their views, which is what is being considered. Can you reference court case where your opinions are established?

---

It's the US Constitution.

---

Yes, the court cases I've referenced are the interpretations of the judicial system of the Constitution on similar matters to the one we're discussing.

Can you reference a court case where your opinions are established?

---

This was shared earlier. Do these rulings not matter?

If only we had Supreme Court precedents on this exact issue.

Talk to SCOTUS about it.

Houchins v. KQED (1978): The First Amendment does not require the government to give the press access to information or places under government control. It “is neither a Freedom of Information… https://t.co/xX2ns9VdQJ

— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) September 19, 2026

---

They don't, and as was stated earlier in this thread, this case is not on point. It's about interviewing prisoners. Those facts are not relevant here.

Ok, well I'm not an attorney and I didn't see where these were ruled irrelevant by someone on here.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

---

..."Unless our party is in power, and then its pompoms and high fives."

---

I'm going to make a pretty solid guess that you have zero knowledge of what FIRE stands for. And I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong here. Hint; they've defended a whole bunch of people on the right.

---

The press clipping was from ABC, mensa. FIRE was just sharing it.

---

And what is FIRE's position, Beavis?

Hutchins v. KQED established that the press does not have the right to access to all information within the government's control: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/1/

That is not the same thing as having the right to access government-established forums for the press. That is protected under the First Amendment.

YouBet said:

---

Ok, well I'm not an attorney and I didn't see where these were ruled irrelevant by someone on here.

---

No problem, and I'm not either. But maybe next time instead of reposting something blindly, take a moment to read what someone is posting for the fact of the matter and make sure it stands for what they are saying. Because there are a ton of chaos artists and grifters who don't do that.

HTownAg98 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Ok, well I'm not an attorney and I didn't see where these were ruled irrelevant by someone on here.

---

No problem, and I'm not either. But maybe next time instead of reposting something blindly, take a moment to read what someone is posting for the fact of the matter and make sure it stands for what they are saying. Because there are a ton of chaos artists and grifters who don't do that.

---

I'll think about it.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

---

..."Unless our party is in power, and then its pompoms and high fives."

---

I don't care which side you're on, that's the truth.

And that's why the First Amendment ensures freedom of the press.

---

Literally no one is arguing otherwise.

Blue star for stating the obvious.

---

It wasn't an argument. I agreed with you and then celebrated the first amendment because it's awesome.

I can see how you would think it was contentious, though. Sorry bout that.

MidRatsAg said:

---

Hutchins v. KQED established that the press does not have the right to access to all information within the government's control: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/1/

That is not the same thing as having the right to access government-established forums for the press. That is protected under the First Amendment.

---

Well, as I already opined this particular forum is irrelevant and has been for some time.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

---

..."Unless our party is in power, and then its pompoms and high fives."

---

I'm going to make a pretty solid guess that you have zero knowledge of what FIRE stands for. And I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong here. Hint; they've defended a whole bunch of people on the right.

---

The press clipping was from ABC, mensa. FIRE was just sharing it.

---

And what is FIRE's position, Beavis?

---

My comment was directed at ABC saying the press is suppose to be contentious when history shows they are only contentious when the party they are the propoganda mouthpiece for, the DNC, isn't in power.

I was criticising ABC's hypocrisy.

I wasn't commenting on FIRE at all.

Do I need to explain this further or do you now understand?

The Houchins case was not about selectively allowing access based on the content of what a particular member of the press is writing or saying. It was about a general policy about access (to prisoners.)

There is 0% chance Trump succeeds in selectively banning members of the media from the entire White House grounds/press facilities. He already tried that with the AP and two Trump appointed judges in the DC Circuit have already said he has to allow the AP access to the White House's general press areas.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I have been clear in telling you that the previous cases are not only irrelevant but almost certainly wrongly decided.

---

In AP v Budovich, two Trump appointed judges who also served in the Trump White Hoise said he almost certainly cannot ban the press based on viewpoints from at least parts of the White House. That will be as relevant and applicable to CNN and others as it was the AP.

We'll see. His lawyers probably want him to shut up about this, though. He's not helping himself by blathering about it on Truth Social.

---

I will agree with this.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government.

"This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America."

🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick
📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl pic.twitter.com/2HAky4tQjb

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) September 20, 2026

---

..."Unless our party is in power, and then its pompoms and high fives."

---

I'm going to make a pretty solid guess that you have zero knowledge of what FIRE stands for. And I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong here. Hint; they've defended a whole bunch of people on the right.

---

The press clipping was from ABC, mensa. FIRE was just sharing it.

---

And what is FIRE's position, Beavis?

---

My comment was directed at ABC saying the press is suppose to be contentious when history shows they are only contentious when the party they are the propoganda mouthpiece for, the DNC, isn't in power.

I was criticising ABC's hypocrisy.

I wasn't commenting on FIRE at all.

Do I need to explain this further or do you now understand?

---

Nah...

The media is ALWAYS contentious...here's an example of them grilling Obama.

And awesome!

Our Lawfare lawyer is back!

Obama was infamously absolutely brutal toward any negative coverage, even with slobbering leftist propagandists such as Bob Woodward.

Quote:

---

Obama most definitely doesn't want you to remember that he spied on the media.
Obama's Justice Department also seized phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors, spied on Fox News's James Rosen and New York Times reporter James Risen, and even labeled Rosen an "unindicted co-conspirator" for the crime of reporting the news. Dozens of major news organizations accused Obama of trampling the First Amendment, all without due process and often in total secrecy.

He wasn't done. Obama also tried to weaponize the FCC through his push for so-called "net neutrality," dressed up as fairness while really handing Washington more leverage over internet providers and, by extension, online speech.

Obama also threatened journalists directly over unflattering coverage. After the 2013 sequestration cuts he tried to blame on Republicans, Bob Woodward exposed Obama's own direct role in choosing what got cut. A senior White House official warned Woodward he would "regret" calling out Obama's role. Woodward refused to back down and went public with the threat, and once he did, other journalists came forward with strikingly similar stories of their own.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation didn't sugarcoat any of it, writing that "as president, Barack Obama harshly punished whistleblowers and took several steps that damaged press freedom." The organization went further, adding that "former President Barack Obama's press freedom record is marred by his administration's relentless prosecutions of whistleblowers, aggressive lobbying to kill FOIA reform, and promotion of government secrecy."

Here's the irony Obama conveniently skipped over: the media was overwhelmingly in love with him for eight years, while Trump gets more than 90% negative coverage. That gap alone makes Trump's complaint about a biased, agenda-driven press look pretty legitimate. And the fact that Obama can stand up today and call something "unimaginable" that he actually did himself tells you exactly how much he actually did get away with. The reason he got away with it is that no one called him out when he made his ridiculous claim, even though he was a corrupt, anti-free-press president.

And what's worse is that he's still getting away with it now.

---

Many of us primarily recall the russiagate sedition he set in motion on his way out the door, but his media handling and attempts to stifle/control political speech really were the key hallmarks of the Kenyan One's tenure in office imho. Often, as per above this was done 'behind the scenes' including with FOIA reform, 'net neutrality' or 'pressure/threats' toward Fox News of course, and with a fully supportive swamp/deep state apparatus that just adored him, but it was quite real.

The left and MSM always express outrage when a Republican president does anything and are silent when a dem pres does the same thing.

ts5641 said:

---

The left and MSM always express outrage when a Republican president does anything and are silent when a dem pres does the same thing.

---

What Obama's admin did was hostile toward the press. Obama is no longer in office. Biden is no longer in office.

What Trump is doing is hostile toward the press and raises First Amendment questions. And, to add to that, he's tried similar things before and had his decisions struck down by courts. I think trying it again further erodes trust in our institutions - trust that is required for a workable democracy.

I don't care what color tie the President wears. I want them to be reasonably transparent and respect Freedom of the Press.

Correct.

And here is,

the Vice President of the United States @VP James David Vance,

“You took the words of unnamed FBI agents and put them on your network as if they were the gospel truth, you did it again and again.”

Now, arrest Jake Tapper. Arrest them all at CNN for the crimes of… pic.twitter.com/sO8myq7rf6

— QUANTUM GUARD ™️ (@QuantumGuard17) September 19, 2026

Again, an enemy of the state. No free office space for 'em.

And the left today still wants to bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine' which was used to target Rush Limbaugh/conservatives for many years.

Quote:

---

Not everyone is pleased by this turn of events, and the reason is simple: The broadcast renaissance in political commentary has tilted heavily towards advocacy of conservative ideas. That's caused liberal groups and top Democratic lawmakers to push back. They are toying with ways to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and they see that a new Congress and administration is opening up opportunities for them to get their way.

For left-wing ideologues, the repeal of a government regulation promoting fairness has been a disaster that allowed the right wing to gain control of public airwaves and poison public discourse. It's bad enough that the federal government gives broadcast licenses to corporations that sell commercial airtime for profit. The least lawmakers can do is bring back the days of federal regulation and bring the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys, and the rest to heel.

"I think we should all be fair and balanced, don't you?" said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), slyly affirming his support for the Doctrine during a Nov. 4, 2008 appearance on Fox News.

The movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is currently somewhat inchoate, involving a loose coalition of groups and individuals who have yet to launch a public campaign for it. Instead supporters seem to be biding their time, as if they are waiting for just the right controversy that will help them frame a policy debate more in their direction. Schumer's comments reflect this strategy, as he claims it is about restoring balance to the air waves, not muzzling anybody.

Advocates are also exploring alternate paths that avoid specifically reviving the Fairness Doctrine but accomplish the same goal. One such proposal would be to allow local community activists to have a say in the renewal of licenses. Imagine if every time you wanted to renew your station's license you have to get the okay of the local branch of ACORN or the NAACP. Current FCC chairman Kevin Martin has already made moves in that direction.

"They will try to sneak in the Fairness Doctrine through the Trojan Horse of localism," John Berlau, director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Foundation Watch in an interview.

In addition to Schumer, the Fairness Doctrine's return has been explicitly endorsed by such congressional leadership figures as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), and Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), the 2004 presidential candidate. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on it. Before the Democrats regained control of Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan) actually held a shadow committee hearing calling for its return. Its most ardent supporter may be Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York), who has sponsored several bills to bring it back.

---

It was also the Kenyan One who gutted the Smith-Mundt prohibitions on propaganda via executive action.

nortex97 said:

---

Correct.

And here is,

the Vice President of the United States @VP James David Vance,

“You took the words of unnamed FBI agents and put them on your network as if they were the gospel truth, you did it again and again.”

Now, arrest Jake Tapper. Arrest them all at CNN for the crimes of… pic.twitter.com/sO8myq7rf6

— QUANTUM GUARD ™️ (@QuantumGuard17) September 19, 2026

Again, an enemy of the state. No free office space for 'em.

And the left today still wants to bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine' which was used to target Rush Limbaugh/conservatives for many years.

Quote:

---

Not everyone is pleased by this turn of events, and the reason is simple: The broadcast renaissance in political commentary has tilted heavily towards advocacy of conservative ideas. That's caused liberal groups and top Democratic lawmakers to push back. They are toying with ways to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and they see that a new Congress and administration is opening up opportunities for them to get their way.

For left-wing ideologues, the repeal of a government regulation promoting fairness has been a disaster that allowed the right wing to gain control of public airwaves and poison public discourse. It's bad enough that the federal government gives broadcast licenses to corporations that sell commercial airtime for profit. The least lawmakers can do is bring back the days of federal regulation and bring the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys, and the rest to heel.

"I think we should all be fair and balanced, don't you?" said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), slyly affirming his support for the Doctrine during a Nov. 4, 2008 appearance on Fox News.

The movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is currently somewhat inchoate, involving a loose coalition of groups and individuals who have yet to launch a public campaign for it. Instead supporters seem to be biding their time, as if they are waiting for just the right controversy that will help them frame a policy debate more in their direction. Schumer's comments reflect this strategy, as he claims it is about restoring balance to the air waves, not muzzling anybody.

Advocates are also exploring alternate paths that avoid specifically reviving the Fairness Doctrine but accomplish the same goal. One such proposal would be to allow local community activists to have a say in the renewal of licenses. Imagine if every time you wanted to renew your station's license you have to get the okay of the local branch of ACORN or the NAACP. Current FCC chairman Kevin Martin has already made moves in that direction.

"They will try to sneak in the Fairness Doctrine through the Trojan Horse of localism," John Berlau, director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Foundation Watch in an interview.

In addition to Schumer, the Fairness Doctrine's return has been explicitly endorsed by such congressional leadership figures as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), and Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), the 2004 presidential candidate. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on it. Before the Democrats regained control of Congress, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan) actually held a shadow committee hearing calling for its return. Its most ardent supporter may be Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York), who has sponsored several bills to bring it back.

---

It was also the Kenyan One who gutted the Smith-Mundt prohibitions on propaganda via executive action.

---

1. The First Amendment protects them via Freedom of the Press. I'd be alarmed at the state of our country if we started arresting press members for exercising their First Amendment rights, whether I agree with them or not.

2. I'm not sure the last time I heard about someone wanting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but I know Obama opposed it.

3. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 was introduced by a Republican Representative from Texas, and rolled into the NDAA of 2013, which was approved by a Republican majority House and a Democrat majority Senate. I'm not sure which executive order you're referring to that repealed Smith-Mundt prohibitions; I can't find one. Can you link me to something referencing it?

So Trump will have no tv press pool now.

The primary White House TV pool is made up of 5 networks: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and FOX. We take turns covering POTUS for pooled events and trips, and then share footage with the other 4 plus other outlets.

Today there is no tv pool, so Trump won’t have a crew with him at UNGA. pic.twitter.com/3l93eSlu5y

— Weijia Jiang (@weijia) September 21, 2026

MidRatsAg said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

It was also the Kenyan One who gutted the Smith-Mundt prohibitions on propaganda via executive action.

---

1. The First Amendment protects them via Freedom of the Press. I'd be alarmed at the state of our country if we started arresting press members for exercising their First Amendment rights, whether I agree with them or not.

2. I'm not sure the last time I heard about someone wanting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but I know Obama opposed it.

3. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 was introduced by a Republican Representative from Texas, and rolled into the NDAA of 2013, which was approved by a Republican majority House and a Democrat majority Senate. I'm not sure which executive order you're referring to that repealed Smith-Mundt prohibitions; I can't find one. Can you link me to something referencing it?

---

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the left seeking to censor 'disinformation' and even expanding the 'fairness doctrine' to cover online speech. Ro Khana is a big fan.

And your own link confirmed what I asserted about Democrats pushing for it under Obama;

Quote:

---

The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.

Fueling discussion, a report in the American Spectator this week said aides to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Calif., met last week with staff for the Federal Communications Commission to discuss ways to enact Fairness Doctrine policies. The report said Waxman was also interested in applying those standards to the Internet, which drew ridicule from supporters and opponents of the doctrine.

---

As you perhaps referenced, the challenge was they couldn't get a GOP House to pass such a law, after ramming through Obamacare cost them the House.
With their planned 'ministry of truth' under Xiden they wouldn't have needed it, of course. The Obama legacy of news suppression is solid, though I guess if one don't care about Internews, USAID, 'training/indoctrination' of journalists using tax payer resources etc, that could be a mystery/unknown. To each their own.

nortex97 said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

It was also the Kenyan One who gutted the Smith-Mundt prohibitions on propaganda via executive action.

---

1. The First Amendment protects them via Freedom of the Press. I'd be alarmed at the state of our country if we started arresting press members for exercising their First Amendment rights, whether I agree with them or not.

2. I'm not sure the last time I heard about someone wanting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but I know Obama opposed it.

3. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 was introduced by a Republican Representative from Texas, and rolled into the NDAA of 2013, which was approved by a Republican majority House and a Democrat majority Senate. I'm not sure which executive order you're referring to that repealed Smith-Mundt prohibitions; I can't find one. Can you link me to something referencing it?

---

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the left seeking to censor 'disinformation' and even expanding the 'fairness doctrine' to cover online speech. Ro Khana is a big fan.

And your own link confirmed what I asserted about Democrats pushing for it under Obama;

Quote:

---

The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.

Fueling discussion, a report in the American Spectator this week said aides to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Calif., met last week with staff for the Federal Communications Commission to discuss ways to enact Fairness Doctrine policies. The report said Waxman was also interested in applying those standards to the Internet, which drew ridicule from supporters and opponents of the doctrine.

---

As you perhaps referenced, the challenge was they couldn't get a GOP House to pass such a law, after ramming through Obamacare cost them the House.
With their planned 'ministry of truth' under Xiden they wouldn't have needed it, of course. The Obama legacy of news suppression is solid, though I guess if one don't care about Internews, USAID, 'training/indoctrination' of journalists using tax payer resources etc, that could be a mystery/unknown. To each their own.

---

1. I hadn't heard about Ro Khana's proposition of a digital Fairness Doctrine. I haven't given it a ton of thought or research, and that article is from 2020 so it may not be a current issue, but I think I would oppose that.

2. I mentioned I wasn't sure the last time I heard about someone wanting to reinstate it. The link I posted was from 2009. I don't think they'd have needed to ram anything through a Republican Congress since the Democrats had the majority of House and Senate in 2009, if memory serves.

I'll try to remember to come back and talk to you about your last point with Obama's news suppression, although I have mentioned multiple times there were several things he did that I'm against. Just like I'm against Trump's FCC trying to stop certain night shows from interviewing candidates without offering their opponents equal time.