Most Americans support the First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.  After all, the freedom to speak their minds is essential to the health and survival of our Representative Republic.  Sadly, some people in this country, like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D:CA), only defend speech that advocates their point of view.  Why else would she and her minions in Congress attempt to pass the Fairness Doctrine into law and stifle our right to disagree?

The Fairness Doctrine originated in 1949 as a policy of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).  The intent was to ensure that coverage of controversial issues by broadcast stations be balanced and fair.  The FCC took the stance that because of the relative small number of broadcast outlets, station licensees (both television and radio) were “public trustees” and were obligated as such to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance.  This big government policy placed political appointees in the FCC in charge of deciding what constitutes equal time between opposing viewpoints. 

So what happened as a result of the Fairness Doctrine?  Well, television and radio stations refrained from editorials and political commentary all together.  Many controversial issues, the very issues that needed discussion and debate the most, were simply ignored.  This was the only sure way to comply with the doctrine.  Of course, journalists and broadcast outlets detested the Fairness Doctrine.  They felt that it violated their First Amendment rights and accomplished the very opposite of what it intended.  As time passed, political commentary came only from the mainstream broadcast outlets and their news reports which purported to be down the middle.  Viewers and listeners were left with a monolithic presentation and analysis of the issues and events that affect us all so greatly.  Conservatives especially felt voiceless because they believed the few mainstream media outlets leaned left in their reporting.  The Democrats that controlled both the House and the Senate from 1955-1981 apparently agreed because they did nothing to reverse it.

All of this changed in the early 1980s.  Ronald Reagan swept into office on a platform of self-reliance and smaller government.  He believed that government regulation was the problem and ushered in a new attitude toward big brother.  He appointed Mark Fowler as Chairman of the FCC who argued that because of the now large number of broadcast outlets in television, cable television and radio, the Fairness Doctrine no longer made sense.  He issued the Fairness Report in 1985 which asserted that the doctrine was no longer effective and that it may violate the First Amendment.  The courts ruled that because it was not a law, the FCC didn't have to enforce it.  So, the Fairness Doctrine died.   Strangely enough, the Democrat controlled Congress, in an attempt to save the doctrine, voted it into law, but President Reagan promptly vetoed their legislation.  Now ask yourself, why did the Democrats want the Fairness Doctrine made into law?  If you don't know yet, then you should know that they tried again during the first Bush administration.  Thankfully, it was vetoed again.

So what happened as a result?  Well, as is often the case, once we rid ourselves of the regulation imposed to accomplish a specific goal, we then accomplish that goal.  Today, we have more political debate and editorial commentary on controversial issues than ever, and one doesn't have to look very far or listen very long to find their point of view represented.  From talk-radio, to the internet, to cable television to newspapers and books, the First Amendment is alive and well in America, and it is wonderful.  Conservatives and Liberals alike should celebrate these results and acknowledge the failures of the Fairness Doctrine.

So why then is Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, working behind the scenes to reinstate the doctrine?  When asked directly by Human Events Political Editor, John Gizzi: “Do you personally support revival of the Fairness Doctrine?”  Speaker Pelosi didn't hesitate: “Yes.  Rep. Louise Slaughter (D:NY)  has been active behind this for a while now.”

I'll let President Bush take it from here: “There’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways.  Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago.  It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine.  Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides.  This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington’s definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don’t like.  We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today.  By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don’t agree with.  The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas.  They don’t acknowledge that you are the balance; that you give voice.   The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions.  After all, we’re strengthened by diversity of opinions."

Congressman Mike Pence (R:IN) recently introduced legislation to ban the return of the Fairness Doctrine.  After all, if the doctrine is reinstated, broadcast outlets won't increase diversity of opinions, they'll drop the format all together.  This may be just what the Democrats in control want.  When asked if Pence's legislation to ban the return of the doctrine would get a vote in the House this year, Pelosi responded: “No”.

President Bush has vowed to veto the doctrine if it comes before him, but we may not be so lucky with our next President.  So, for all you who cherish our Freedom of Speech and respect Americans enough to continue to give them the right to hear all sides of the debate before deciding for themselves, choose carefully in November.


click here for more columns by Todd A. Carges