Does the Fairness Doctrine violate First Amendment rights in the US?

Yes

1 of 6

by Lisa Mount

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The Trojan in the First Amendment

The liberal left is at war with the First Amendment. Like dangerous malware buried deep in legitimate web downloads, the Democrats' dangerous agenda behind their campaign to reactivate the Fairness Doctrine is buried deep beneath high sounding words like "fair" and "balance." Thanks to conservative radio and the tiny number of right-thinking people sprinkled in the mainstream media, a huge segment of the American people understand the intent and the ramifications of the liberal Democrats' sudden concern with media fairness.

Understandi ng the purpose of the original Fairness Doctrine is critical to understanding the constitutional problems the Doctrine will impose if it's resurrected. The Fairness Doctrine of 1949 was applied by the FCC back in the days when there were only three broadcast stations and the radio played only the top 40. The Fairness Doctrine was put in place to ensure that broadcasters presented a variety of views beyond their own on controversial issues. The FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 when it was found that it had the net effect of reducing rather than encouraging debate. Broadcasters tended to avoid controversy because they feared government fines and the potential loss of a federal license. The unintended consequence was a lack of real debate in the airwaves which in turn maintained the status quo established by the print media. The intended consequence by the extreme-left likes of Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin and Diane Feinstein is to shut down the likes of Rush Limbaugh, among others, to create their own unchallenged status quo.

With the wide variety of media outlets provided by the advancement in communications technology, the Fairness Doctrine is obsolete. The liberals don't lack for opportunities across the spectrum of American media outlets. They dominate the print media, the mainstream broadcast news and most of the cable news stations. One can argue that the media playing field is tilted heavily, some would say almost vertically, in favor of liberal news. The Democrats' sudden interest in fairness then begs the obvious question: will the slew of liberal TV broadcasts, National Public Radio and the editorial page of the New York Times be required to give equal time to opposing viewpoints on their shows? Not likely.

As many news analysts have explained, the free market is responsible for the predominant success of conservative radio. Listeners have chosen conservative radio because they are sick of the left's 1960s nihilistic social and political ideologies. The American people, having suffered decades from the fruit of the left's policies, now demand common sense and rightness in governance. The failure of Al Franken's "Air America" had nothing to do with unfairness-it just sucked. National Public Radio would probably crash and burn too if it wasn't getting propped up by the American taxpayer.

"Liberal talk radio is not failing in the free market," claimed liberal talk show host Stephanie Mills in a July 6 interview on "Hannity and Colmes."
"My show has quadruple the ratings of any other show on radio," she claimed. "Why is radio 90% conservative and only 10% liberal?" she rhetorically demanded. Her explanation was that liberal shows were denied access by station owners despite their popularity with listeners. But the free market results say otherwise. Liberal claptrap isn't popular with the majority of radio listeners, and therefore it isn't popular with a majority of radio investors. Her big idea to solve the "inequity" in the AM band? Force investors to air more Al Franken (and go bust).

The party of the left knows it has no legal or ethical justification to summon the Fairness Doctrine back from the dead. However, they will do whatever it takes to overwhelm the opposition, like whining a lot. But that strategy has failed, so their new strategy is to employ lies, bigotry, intolerance and character assassination. Cybercast News Service reported July 5 that the Democrats intend to push for the regulation by linking talk radio to hate crimes. They have requested a federal study of how licensed broadcasting facilities have delivered "messages of bigotry or hatred, creating a climate of fear and inciting individuals to commit hate crimes." The goal is to impose Orwellian "hate speech" codes on any media outlet or person that exposes the left's true agenda. If your ideas aren't acceptable to the ears of your hearers, then ram them in with federal chop sticks. Mao would be so proud.

"The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the fairness doctrine,' chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'... History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee. [The fairness doctrine'] simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by our Constitution. It is, in my judgment, unconstitutional. Well-intentioned as [the fairness doctrine'] may be, it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment and with the American tradition of independent journalism."
-Ronald Reagan

Learn more about this author, Lisa Mount.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.