Socialist Congress Ramping Up To Quell Conservative Opposition

Each day brings new reports that members of the Socialist Congress (like Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.) favor reimposing a "standard" on talk radio which would "bring[] accountability to the airwaves." This language is Congressional Code-Speak equating to the statement that they support the idea of bringing back a version of the "Fairness Doctrine," a doctrine which required radio and television stations to give the same amount of time to both conservative and liberal viewpoints on political issues.

Why are these statements not summarily rejected when the "Fairness Doctrine" was abandoned in 1987 as Unconstitutional? Why is the suggestion of reimposing such a "standard" gaining momentum instead? At first blush, this Congressional Code-Speak sounds reasonable, rational, and even responsible--especially to an inattentive electorate that allows itself to be bought for the price of a well-crafted, prettily-said, turn of phrase. But pull back the veil of pretty words, and you reveal the rotting corpse of a Socialist Tyrant preventing widespread understanding of his diseased condition by providing to his followers the opportunity to discredit and neutralize every report of his disastrous decline by waxing poetically about his health, beauty, and generosity.

Democracy itself does not guarantee freedom. Elected representatives, just like everyone else, are human, and they can easily succumb to the drive to pursue that course of action which will best further their own self-interests, rather than the interests of the electorate. Preventing and/or limiting intellectual challenges to governmental policies enacted by those in power is a very effective means of sustaining political power. This is because an electorate has a very difficult time organizing resistance to a government policy when it neither fully understands the ramifications of the policy, nor is able to conceptualizes any alternative to that policy.

The Founders believed that the more public discussion there was about political issues, the more educated the electorate would become, the more likely it was the the truth would be revealed, and the more likely it was that the best government policies would be implemented. For this reason, among others, the First Amendment explicitly protects the rights of the people to be free from censorship by the government. The First Amendment provides: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We determined long ago in this country that those governmental regulations which impose any conditions or burdens upon persons wishing to express their viewpoints impose defacto barriers to free speech. In other words, they constitute censorship in fact, whether that effect was intended or not. This is because people may be (and are) prevented from, or limited in, expressing their viewpoints when they are unwilling or unable to meet such conditions or burdens.

Thus, the purported "Fairness Doctrine" was rejected as Unconstitutional in 1987. Rather than simply expecting viewers and listeners to change T.V. and radio channels if they were unhappy with the content of a particular broadcast, the "Fairness Doctrine" forced broadcasters who wanted to express their political viewpoints to (1) bear the effort and expense of broadcasting two viewpoints rather than one, and (2) to dilute the clarity and effectiveness of their own message by simultaneously broadcasting an opposing viewpoint. Before it was outlawed, the practical impact of this legislation was that it cut back on the amount of public debate of political issues, rather than permitting the full scope of debate in which the electorate was inclined to engage.

Interesting, isn't it, that only talk-radio appears to be an "equal time" target for the new Socialist Congress. Perhaps that is because talk-radio is where the conservatives have benn forced to make their stand, since the television media is wholly dominated by the Socialist agenda? In the coming times we must remain vigilant against the Socialist Congress's attempts to render its political power permanent by minimizing the ability of the conservative opposition to educate the majority of the electorate out of its willing ensorcellment.

To those who complain that talk-radio is a valid arena in which to create "fairness standards" because of the allegedly vile and outlandish statements and tactics engaged in by conservatives, we must calmly educate them that if we want to protect our right of free speech in fact, rather than in name only, they must accept that the more objectionable they find the material, the more they must be willing to protect the right of the speakers to say it. As beautifully said by Jacob Hornberger on November 1, 2004 in the Freedom Daily, "The true test of a free society in terms of freedom of speech is not whether popular and 'responsible' speech is protected from government assault but instead whether the most vile and despicable speech receives such protection. After all, even in North Korea people are free to publish popular and 'responsible' materials. People have freedom of speech only when government is prohibited from suppressing the most unpopular and irresponsible forms of speech." See http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0407a.asp.