First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
print this   Print         E-mail this article  E-mail this article

Fairness Doctrine talk, libel case raise free-speech worries
Inside the First Amendment

By Gene Policinski
First Amendment Center vice president/executive director

We keep finding new ways to argue with ourselves over old ideas about what we can or cannot say to each other — in other words, we’re constantly redefining the boundaries of free speech.

Even as you read this:

  • The “buzz” is buzzing louder about reviving the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” discarded in 1987 by the Federal Communications Commission as a tool to regulate broadcasters.

  • A federal court in Boston puts an unexpected dent into the long-held legal doctrine that truth is a solid defense in a libel case.

    The headline-grabber for this “everything old is new again” free-speech roundup is the possibility that Congress — read the Democratic majority, at least — may try to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine,” or perhaps press the FCC to bring it back to life.

    In theory, the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to make certain that at least two sides of any public-policy debate were available on the publicly owned airwaves. By the mid-1980s, the FCC and others found that the policy actually was chilling public debate, not promoting it. To avoid costly legal entanglements, broadcasters were finding it easier just to avoid topics that might provoke controversy — hardly making radio and TV the “marketplace of ideas” so necessary to a vital democracy.

    Also found lacking was a basic premise rooted in mid-20th century reality. Widespread cable television use voided the once-held argument that a limited number of available broadcast TV channels required that government needed to step in to ensure fair use of public airwaves.

    Opponents of any legislative or administrative revival effort argue that the Internet alone voids both justifications: There are huge audiences for blogs, chat groups and Web sites espousing myriad views available to anyone with access to a personal or publicly provided computer.

    Moreover, this current blip of interest carries a heavy tinge of partisanship — an indelible irony for something with “fairness” in its name. Critics of returning to the old policy claim the impetus is more the political and business success of conservative broadcasters as opposed to their liberal counterparts.

    Advocates of the doctrine are pressing for at least congressional hearings on the matter — at which presumably all sides will get a chance to speak. Though Congress certainly has its own mind on what to consider — and what to approve — the likelihood of eventually reviving the doctrine was dealt a blow when the White House made clear on Feb. 18 that it opposed reinstatement.

    In the second rerun incident, a three-judge panel in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upended a long-held rule of law that “truth is an absolute defense” when someone is sued for libel. The opinion has surprised some experts on libel — and, if ultimately upheld, would uproot basic legal tenets of free speech and the law.

    The judges reviewed Noonan v. Staples, a case involving an employee of a business-supply firm who sued the company after an executive sent an e-mail to about 1,500 employees detailing why the employee had been fired for what the company said was falsifying expense reports.

    The court’s opinion said that even if the factual account sent to other workers were true, and apparently it was, the employee involved might be able to recover damages  if the e-mail was sent maliciously — in this case, to humiliate the former employee. The judges sent the case back to a lower court in Massachusetts for reconsideration.

    If the court’s decision ever were to apply widely, the result could be similar to what opponents say will happen after revival of the Fairness Doctrine: A paralysis of public debate in which legal challenges ask courts to examine and determine possible motives of speakers, bloggers, filmmakers, journalists and others, rather than to review the truth of the facts.

    These two examples aren’t the only places where we continue to debate and define protected speech. There are current disputes over salacious postings on social networking sites, Internet locations that post product reviews, and online sites that rate business and personal services. The right of public employees to comment on their jobs, and the degree of protection (if any) for whistleblowers on waste, fraud or corruption in government and in private business are also being contested.

    It’s a compliment of sorts to the vitality of free speech that we keep talking about issues like the Fairness Doctrine and libel law. We need to keep at least one essential idea foremost in all those conversations: More speech is always better than less.

    Gene Policinski is vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20001. Web: E-mail:

  • Related

    1st Circuit libel ruling disturbs some First Amendment advocates

    By Caroline Tenenbaum Panel finds 1902 Massachusetts statute 'recognizes a narrow exception' to principle that truth is absolute defense against libel lawsuits. 02.24.09

    Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine

    Agency killed mechanism for requiring broadcasters to balance their programming in 1987, concluding that new information sources made doctrine obsolete. 02.26.09

    Full 1st Circuit won't take another look at libel case

    Journalists and bloggers worry ruling in Noonan v. Staples could undermine concept that truth should be an absolute defense against libel. 03.19.09

    House panel blocks effort to bar revival of Fairness Doctrine
    By Brian Schraum Proposal would have prevented the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating controversial rule abandoned in 1987. 07.24.09


    Libel & defamation

    Analysis/Commentary summary page
    View the latest analysis and commentary throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

    Last system update: Friday, April 23, 2010 | 16:24:42
    About this site
    About the First Amendment
    About the First Amendment Center
    How to contribute
    First Amendment programs
    State of the First Amendment

    Religious liberty in public schools
    First Reports
    Supreme Court
    First Amendment publications
    First Amendment Center history
    Freedom Sings™
    First Amendment

    Congressional Research Service reports
    Guest editorials
    FOI material
    The First Amendment

    Lesson plans
    Contact us
    Privacy statement
    Related links