Back in the 1920's and 30's the technology of radio began changing the American landscape. "Broadcasters" (a term coined after farmers throwing seeds in their fields) began to create programming for leisure pursuits. Like today, it was mostly music at first. But later it went on to include news and various shows.

But there was trouble on the horizon. Fights broke out between the competing radio stations. Broadcasters would sometimes change frequencies without telling anyone or turn up their power, drowning out other signals. As the radio wars got worse, the government stepped in and set up the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They justified this move by rationalizing that the radio frequencies encircling the earth were public property. (The closest parallel to this would be to argue that demonstrations often use public parks and sidewalks, thus you'd need a license before marching.)

The FCC was given regulatory powers including the power to give licenses, dictate how powerful signals could be and grant call letters.

But the question came up: what if someone bought out all of the radio stations? Couldn't these people control the debate by deciding what would be presented on their stations and what wouldn't? This was a great concern to people who could still remember Teddy Roosevelt the great trust buster.

Enter "The Fairness Doctrine", a regulation set up to "present both sides of the argument". The doctrine simply stated that in any discussion of political issues, the other side had to be presented with equal time. There was a limit to how many stations/newspapers a company could own. (Note that journalists and news agencies were exempt from these restrictions.)

In a world where there were only handfull of  real outlets of discussion either on the radio airwaves/television airwaves this seemed like a good idea. Unfortunately "the Fairness Doctrine" only succeeded in shutting down debate all together. There are more than two sides in almost any debate and it's impossible to dedicate time to all of those involved. The quickest way to get the FCC off your back was to not say anything at all.

As time went on, new avenues opened up in the world of broadcasting. FM radio was invented. So were UHF and cable television channels. It took it some forty years but eventually this broke up everything until by 1986, Ronald Reagan did away with "the Fairness Doctrine." AM channels were getting killed anyway by music only stations that sounded better on stereo FM. Cable stations were providing more sources of information than just the "big three networks" all put together.

This ushered in the era of talk radio and the rise of Conservative talk. Hosts from coast to coast quickly began to take over the radio dials providing lots of op eds. Liberal hosts tended to go extinct. Television networks began to find their numbers slipping, especially in their nightly newscasts to cable outlets.

The nineties saw the rise of "Fox News" and the internet. For the first time in history the American public was completely overwhelmed by information. You can get almost anything you need at any time day or night with a couple of mouse clicks.

The problem was that people stopped listening/watching liberal shows and hosts. Newspapers and news magazines began to die due to lack of readership. Hollywood films pumping out left wing propaganda began to bomb at theaters nation wide. The left wing point of view wasn't getting out anymore.

But Liberals couldn't do anything about it accept complain since Republicans controlled both houses of congress. But that all changed in 2006 with the election of a new Democratic lead Congress. They haven't even been in power a month and they're already rolling out several ideas to bring back the days of yester year when they had unquestioned control of all the flows of information. One of their centerpieces is the reinstallment of "The Fairness Doctrine".

It's funny to think that the same leftists that look with suspicion whenever "big oil men" are appointed to the Energy Department are firmly convinced that the news industry that votes 90% left wing in every election can present "both sides" fairly. But that aside, the left can't agree over *why* to bring the doctrine.

The first school is angry about "bias" on radio/television. Their idea is to end things like Fox News and Conservative Talk radio (since their side can't compete.) Air America went down the toilet (even after embezzling money from disadvantaged inner city kids to try to keep themselves afloat.) They argue that these things are actually propaganda from the right (disguised as factual shows) that are spreading disinformation.

The problem with this first school is that freedom of speech means that people have a right to talk, discuss and decide for themselves what they want to believe. The Government (under the guise of "The Fairness Doctrine") would stamp on free speech by denying people the right to say everything they want too. It would also put in the requirement that people in media outlets would have to say things they don't necessarily want too. This is the first step towards tyranny. It also hinges on the assumption that the listener is too stupid to decide for themselves. In a world where there are thousands of sources of information, you have to trust in the people.

The second school in favor of a new doctrine are the people who argue just the opposite: that there are too many media outlets and the stupid people on the street can't decide what to believe. Thus it's up to the government to step in and filter the information from people.

Obviously again, this would be an attack on freedom of thought. People need to be trusted to decide for themselves what to believe. It's interesting to note that these two left wing arguments actually counter each other - but that's what we come to expect from people who think they know better than the rest of us.

It's bad enough that the holier than thou amongst us believe they should be deciding what we see and read on the airwaves, but their plan is more insideous than that. They also want to encroach on the internet and the blogosphere - attaching nice words "lobbying reform" to bills that would regulate what is said on the internet. I would expect anyone with a quality first grade education to see how that is a violation of free speech and press. Thank god the left controls the schools and is dumbing down education or they'd all be kicked out of office.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to things that used the public airwaves. It *never* applied to newspapers. Nor does it apply to private enterprises like the internet. No one needs a license to blog (yet.) But make no bones about it - that will be a stepping stone down the road.

I believe that Free Speech is just that: free. Unregulated, no license required, no government agency oversight, no laws telling me what can and cannot be said, but actually free. The minute you put ANY kind of "but" in there, you no longer have free speech. It's shocking that so many people do want to put "but"s in there and still call it free.