Neal Boortz has some good comments on the Fairness Doctrine today:

Note, please, that whenever despots try to seize control of a government, and with it a country, they first seize control of the means of communication. How can you observe this in country after country with despot after despot engaged in coup after coup and not understand that this is exactly what our own politicians do when they try to increase their control over broadcasting? How will the Democrat's looming attempt to reign in talk radio be any different than Hugo Chavez' attempts to shut down opposition newspapers in Venezuela?

Any political attempt to silence political speech of your political opposition or to intimidate them is clearly against the intent of the first amendment - ensuring that opposition to politicians has a full right to be heard, including using the latest technology. Boortz also makes the observation that if the nonsensical idea of "public airwaves" is the basis upon which free political speech on radio stations can be regulated, newspapers are delivered on "public highways" and can also be regulated. I'd add that magazines use the "public postal system" and that even web sites use "public cyberspace." While certainly the government can regulate what is broadcast on radio, TV, etc., the idea of the Fairness Doctrine as a political weapon to silence your opposition is blatantly unconstitutional.

And guess which wing of the Supreme Court would be more than willing to accept the idea of the government having the power to regulate political speech over the airwaves?

As James Gattuso from the Heritage Foundation explained:

Arguments that the Fairness Doctrine is needed because certain types of media are too conservative, too negative, too partisan, or too anything actually strengthen the case against the regulation. Any law that is targeted at media based on the content of what is being said raises greater constitutional concerns and is much less likely to pass constitutional muster--and for good reason. Regulating speech in order to alter its content is exactly the sort of meddling that the First Amendment is meant to prohibit. It is simply not the job of politicians to "correct" the mix of opinions being expressed in the marketplace of ideas, even if--and especially if--they disagree with those opinions.

Liberals, if your basic commitment to the rights of citizens doesn't convince you the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea, take note: the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations used the Fairness Doctrine to intimidate their critics in the media. You do not want to go down this path. Perhaps you'd like Obama's administration to have this power, but are you really that confident of success in 2012/2016?

Labels: politics