The Fairness Doctrine

I have always been frightened by anyone, or anything, that promises fairness, equality, something for everyone. Not that I don't believe in those things per se; it is simply that I don't want to be promised them. I would rather initiate and act upon those principles on my own.

The Fairness Doctrine (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm) was considered, and thankfully, rejected, decades ago. It appears to be rearing its head again. This most likely has much to do with the recent rejection of the proposed amnesty legislation.

Years have passed since our personal freedoms began erosion through the false promise of equality. We have failed to notice that there are now words that we cannot say, and that we are held accountable for, if we do say them. After the individual words were BANNED, HATE SPEECH emerged. So, even if we do not use the BANNED words, the tone and feeling of
our statements are yet again restricted.

Now, Talk Radio finds itself in the crosshairs of this abuse of the English language. Under the guise of FAIRNESS, options are being considered to "level the playing field" in the arena of radio. The playing field is already leveled. Open competition insures that. Radio, like its advertising states, is one of the last bastions of "free" that We the People have to choose from. Radio is supported, not by the government, not by donations, but by the adverisers. If the
public does not respond to the advertising, either because they don't like the products or because they don't listen to the particular station, then the advertisers will discontinue their contracts with the stations. The stations will either change and provide programming that attracts listeners, or will flounder by the wayside.

Consider the ramifications of a Fairness Doctrine. How would speech be regulated? The politicians think that there is too much conservative talk. They want opposing viewpoints. Consider this from a practical point of view. First, what is the determination of conservative? Where would the line be drawn? Second, who would be the arbiters? Who would make the
decision?

Are We the People actually willing to surrender own abilities to think and decide, to a group of nameless folks that we allow to think and decide for us?

Why are politicians concerned about what is said on Talk Radio? Perhaps this is because TR reaches so many people, and those people are actively involved and concerned about events that take place in the US? It seems that politicians would welcome this huge block of people, and take their opinions into consideration when making their own decisions.

We the People must be very wary of people who make promises to us. Rather, we need to find people who solicit our opinions. When we allow people to make promises, we give them control. Just like we did with speech.

This is far afield of what the Founding Fathers envisioned.