According to United Press International, on June 24, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) has stated that she is going to “look into” the possibility of reviving the Fairness Doctrine for U.S. broadcasters.

It should be noted that talk radio is dominated by conservative, republican leaning, pundits.

The Fairness Doctrine would require radio stations to present both, if not all sides of a controversial issue. Senator Feinstein made this comment after the controversial immigration bill was voted down early this summer.

The Fairness Doctrine has not been enforced since 1985. In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the Fairness Doctrine would lead to a “chilling” of Free Speech. In 1985 FCC Chairman, Mark Fowler, began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In 1987, congress attempted to codify the Fairness Doctrine, but it was vetoed by President Reagan.

In 1991, the United States Congress attempted to pass another Fairness Doctrine Law, but it was abandoned as President George H.W. Bush threatened to veto the bill.

The fact that any government official is expressing the desire to regulate public discourse in such a dramatic fashion should make us wary, but Senator Feinstein’s intention of looking into the re-application of the Fairness Doctrine warrants further consideration.

She is not alone in her desire. Early in 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced their support to reverse the 1987 FCC decision, and restore the Fairness Doctrine.

It should be noted that the FCC has not enforced the Fairness Doctrine since the early 1980s.

Looking over that list, one cannot help realizing that it is a predominantly Democratic group trying to take on a “bastion of conservative thought.”

This is obvious, but is a rather moot point. As liberals have expressed concern over the conservative leaning of both radio talk shows and Fox News, conservatives have raised concern over the predominantly liberal bias of both Hollywood and the mainstream media.

The real concern is what the revival of the Fairness Doctrine could mean for the Freedom of Speech. The Fairness Doctrine represents an unnecessary involvement of the government in the business of public discourse. There is no party whose rights are being violated, no one is being forcibly silenced.

Who is to decide which ideas deserve to be presented as either a point or a counter-point? Who is given this privilege if the broadcasters themselves are not allowed to decide what will be presented on their stations?

We may forget that these are private companies, operating privately owned stations. They have hired the hosts and pundits that operate their shows because their audience is receptive to the message that the radio station espouses.

What is to happen if the government is put in charge of these stations, if they are to enforce the Fairness Doctrine? How long before the radio stations are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the government?

We must remember, the Fairness Doctrine only applies to radio stations, but what if it were to be applied to other forms of media “fairly.” Would the FCC have to force film studios to film counter points to any movie that is filmed.

The Supreme Court has already decided that to enforce the Fairness Doctrine on print media would violate the First Amendment. The truth is, the Fairness Doctrine is in fact, unfair. In media law, it is referred to as viewpoint bias.

We must rely on the market place to decide which ideas hold weight, and which are to be forgotten. For the government to intentionally limit some forms of media according to their viewpoints is inexcusable.

Free, unimpeded speech has been at the core of the American belief system since the founding of our nation. It is the First Amendment for a reason.

When Alexis de Tocqueville surveyed the American Political landscape in the early nineteenth century, he observed that Americans held their Freedom of Speech as one of their core, and most exercised rights.

He noticed that an American would give you his opinion on anything from the weather to the current performance of the government.

To allow a regulation like the Fairness Doctrine to neuter Free Speech is not only wrong, it is inexcusable.

Staff: - 08/29/07