Diary

Fairness Doctrine is unconstitutional

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that “Congress shall pass no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

The gross misnomer that is the “Fairness Doctrine” directly undercuts a major media source in our country, striking at the core of the Constitution and the free press.  It directly limits people’s access to the media they would choose without government interference. 

I do not expect the duplicitous and hypocritical ACLU to stand up for this violation of the core of the 1st Amendment, though they should.   Tthey routinely ignore Constitutional violations by liberals and even supported going after peaceful protesters in front of abortion clinics, a core political speech right, while supporting dubious and tangential “commercial speech” such as porno as necessary to prevent the slippery slope that could lead to violating real political speech.

The Democrats will say that radio media will continue.  It will, with more liberal programming.  But what if we did the same with print media?  What if we abolished the New York Times or forced it to run conservative content?  Print media would still continue, but we know that would be just as wrong.  If willing dupes wish to purchase the partisan rag, they have the right to do so, and our Constitution preserves their right to be as blatantly partisan as they are.

The notion that we must legislate that via radio all hear both sides of an issue also is lamentably wanting in intellectual rigor and syllogistic competence.  First, why limit it to one form of media?  Second, who is to decide which issues are bilateral?  Or what constitutes each “side” of an issue being adequately represented and heard?  For the government to define the public debate and control media, especially so directly, is the very fatal sin the Founders sought to protect against in adopting the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

So liberals, if any of you are reading this, consider:  What is to stop your political opposition from abridging the freedom of the press in ways damaging your own partisan interests?  What recourse will there be for you once you have gutted out a foundational check and balance to our democracy?  Is it worth undermining the Republic for which we stand for a potential short term political benefit?  History will record what the powers of unchecked liberalism pursues in this matter, so choose carefully.