Conservative Speech Isn’t “Fair”! Waaaaaaaaahhh

You might’ve heard that the Jackasses—whoops, I mean the Democrats—have been pushing to pass legislation re-instituting the “Fairness Doctrine,” an antiquated and anti-free  speech FCC regulation (abolished in 1987) requiring all FCC licensees to present controversial public (read: political) matters in an “equal” and “balanced” manner.   This would, of course, allow the Left (now synonymous with the Democratic Party) to eviscerate pesky conservative radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and others, who have so “unfairly” eroded the liberal monopoly on national media coverage of public issues.  It should go without saying that the “Fairness Doctrine” is anything but fair, since it allows the calculus of “fairness” to be devised and enforced by the State.  It should also be obvious that the Doctrine is unconstitutional, since it clearly abridges freedom of speech over public airwaves. 

It is true that the federal government regulates the airwaves, which is not, by itself, inappropriate.  That oversight, however, was intended to be that of a benign, arms-length steward: public discourse, whether it occurs over radio airwaves, television, print, or the Internet, belongs solely to The People (us!).  But of course, we now know that State stewardship of public and private property is now viewed by Congress and the Supreme Court as State ownership, and we are all mere licensees–in other words, serfs living on their feudal lands, paying tribute at their mercy.  Sounds extreme, right?  Not really.  Under the 2005 Kelo ruling, the government is free to take your home and its surrounding lands and give them to a private developer to build a park or a community center, or any other damn thing that might remotely be deemed to “benefit” the public.  Reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine” is Kelo in a First Amendment context.

Venezuelan Thug-in-Chief—oh, excuse me, President—Hugo Chavez, darling of celebrities such as Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte (not to mention token academic Cornel West), is bravely leading the way for our Democrats by instituting his own, more straightforward version of the Fairness Doctrine.  Chavez has shut down the only radio station critical of him which was capable of reaching all Venezuelans, and has replaced it with a state-funded, pro-Chavez station. 

So, it’s not hard to see how the “Fairness Doctrine” might start as this:


 but taken to its logical conclusion, it’s this:



~ by lewdandlascivious on May 28, 2007.

4 Responses to “Conservative Speech Isn’t “Fair”! Waaaaaaaaahhh”

  1. Does that mean that ABC, CNN, TBS, PBS, NBC, and whatever alphabet soup of TV stations that I missed will also have to present a conservative viewpoint? 🙂

    Really, isn’t this a First Amendment issue? How can speech be free if it has to represent all sides? You wouldn’t require a magazine for gays to present, on a monthly basis, the idea that homosexuality is wrong. The licenses to the airwaves has to be given out in a viewpoint neutral manner (i.e. not favouring any particular viewpont), but the FCC doesn’t get to run your radio station.

    Screw it all, I’m moving to France. 🙂

  2. It’s like, the most obvious 1st Amendment issue ever. I can’t imagine a more blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
    Of course it would not apply to TV networks or newspapers–those would be distinguished on some bogus ground or another, but the real reason they wouldn’t be tampered with is because those media are safely liberal. The libs have just not been able to match the success of Rush & Co., so now they’re trying to shut them down, Constitution be damned.

    It never fails to infuriate me how liberals go into hysterics at every imagined or hypothetical threat to Constitutional liberties (e.g., the Patriot Act), yet themselves proudly trample the Constitution via “emanations,” “penumbras,” and self-serving notions of “fairness.”

    Why on God’s green earth would you ever want to move to France? Have you been smoking the crack rock out there in Cali?

  3. 1. The theory of FCC regulation is that the airwaves are a limited media; you can put out more newspapers, but you can’t make more airwaves. (I guess this does not apply to cable TV.)

    2. Hysterics at the Patriot Act? Hell, have you seen the hissy fit thrown over the presence of a memorial cross?

    3. France – because they elected a conservative.

    4. Yeah, Cali gets to everyone eventually.

  4. I posted on this also. Airwaves equal all airwaves but clearly the NPR/AirAmerica (socialists) crowd wants to silence the commercial/conservative groups.(capitalists.) My beef is that with satellite,HD etc. the dial is getting bigger. Last things..1.Great post especially with the legal aspect.2.Don’t go to France !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: