So just in case you're interested...

Congress is trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine (which ended by Presidential veto in 1987) this week. Why? Maybe because they're in the majority again and can't figure out how to compete economically with the strength of conservative talk radio.

On the face of it, that's bad enough. But the thing many people have found alarming is that there was an attempt to apply the rule to bloggers above a certain level of readership. So what's the big deal, right?

According to wikipedia, in 1969:

Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers, the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum.
Is the blogosphere more limited than newspapers? On the contrary, most anyone who can use a computer can start a blog, and people are open to comment on whatever they wish. As long as the Fairness Doctrine remains a liberal fantasy, that is. So would that make the Fairness Doctrine supportive of the First Amendment or would it be more restrictive of our rights? You be the judge.

So as I said, there was an attempt to apply a resurrected Fairness Doctrine to bloggers. How did the vote go? The results are here. But how was the split?

Yea (favoring the amendment to scuttle the inclusion of bloggers) 55 (48 R, 7 D)
Nay (opposing the amendment) 43 (43 D, 2 Ind.)

So, which one would be the party of individual rights? And stepping on those rights helps whom? Just checking.

H/T: The Liberty Papers