FCC Repeals the Fairness Doctrine and Other Regulations
As part of its recently announced plan to eliminate 83 "outdated" rules, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a final rule officially repealing the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC has not enforced since the late 1980s. The repeal follows President Obama's Executive Order that directed independent regulatory agencies like the FCC to revise or remove outdated or burdensome regulations. The Fairness Doctrine instructed radio and television broadcasters to cover important public issues with a "fair cross-section of opinion" in their broadcasts. It also required broadcasters to notify and offer individuals involved in public matters who were insulted on air the opportunity to respond through the broadcaster's programming. In its 1969 decision in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine over a First Amendment challenge, finding that the public had a right to "to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences" over broadcasts. Under this reasoning, the FCC was authorized to regulate the content of broadcasts to promote the public interest. In a 1985 internal review, the FCC concluded that the Fairness Doctrine was no longer necessary for the public interest. The review found that the media marketplace provided adequate competition of different viewpoints. The Commission also determined that the "fair cross-section" requirements discouraged coverage of controversial but important stories because broadcasters might avoid topics that could trigger Fairness Doctrine obligations. While FCC Commissioners voted to repeal the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 based on their conclusions from two years earlier, the rules remained on the books, prompting commentators from the political left and right to express their opinions on the future of the Fairness Doctrine. However, with the repeal now official, these concerns have likely become moot.
Read more detail on Recent Administrative Law Posts –
Legal notice about the FCC Repeals the Fairness Doctrine and Other Regulations
rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to FCC Repeals the Fairness Doctrine and Other Regulations?
- Securities Industry Asks Second Circuit to Invoke Supreme Court Morrison Doctrine on Extraterritorial Application of US Securities Regulations
- US federal banking agencies issue final regulations promulgating use of municipal obligations for LCR compliance
- Fairness matters
- Will Algorithms Take the Fairness Out of Fair Use?
- F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules
- Discretionary Equity Awards to Directors Subject to “Entire Fairness” Standard of Review
- Binns on Fairness & Machine Learning
- With Carpenter v. United States, Supreme Court Edges Fourth Amendment Doctrine into the 21st Century
- Vested rights doctrine
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm