I used to joke that Free Speech and Free Press couldn’t exist without proper government oversight and regulation. The punch line should be obvious: freedom means free of government meddling in any form. But the joke is lost on the smartest people in room. Take this column from Simon Jenkins over at the UK Guardian titled Free Speech can’t exist unchained. The sad part is that where I’m trying to be funny, this guy is serious he really doesn’t think freedom can exist without the government getting involved.

No one should be surprised. Lefties are so full of themselves they can’t even see the obvious when it’s staring them in the face. It seems one really does need an Ivy League education to follow the thought pattern. It’s doubly funny considering that these people are exercising their right to free speech and press to lecture us about the evils of such things.

Thus it’s not surprising that the Ruling Class is calling for the reimposition of the “Fairness Doctrine” blaming talk radio for the Tucson tragedy. Representative Jim Clyburn has been leading the charge for renewing censorship on the airwaves. This becomes a lot scarier when one considers Clyburn’s daughter Mignon is an FCC Commissioner.

The argument for “fairness” goes something like this: “the people” own the airwaves, thus “the people” can set the rules concerning what is said on the airwaves. If “the people” don’t approve of such speech or expression, then those things can be taken down.

This of course, is “censorship” by definition. But since the word “censorship” polls poorly, it will be called “fairness” or “civility” instead.

If one follows this idea out to its logical conclusion, it is the duty of governing officials ruling on behalf of “We the People” to take such measures.  Never mind that “We the People” are prohibited in the First Amendment from making any regulations prohibiting speech we don’t like. When it says “no law”, it means “no law”. Whatever good that is to come from such prohibitions are irrelevant.  

But premise sounds like a wonderful thing: Just present both sides of any given issue. There will be “equal time” for all viewpoints. It’s just that sweet and easy…unless you are one who has actually worked in that business and knows what goes on to run it.

The government may own the public airwaves, but it doesn’t own the broadcasting equipment. To give a broad comparison, this is like arguing that “the people” have a right to use a road, so they can take your car to drive on it.

What a slap in the face to hard working station owners and program directors breaking their backs to appeal to broad audiences. What a kick to the face to radio hosts who have spent years working their way up the ladders. What an insult to the sales staff trying to get advertisers to keep the station in business.

It’s a very typical of a attitude of the left wing government running this nation – to shove aside the hard working so as to put in a bunch rank amateurs who don’t have to be interesting orkeeping advertisers happy. Nor do they have to worry about any of the costs involved – the staff, equipment and airtime are all to be provided for free.

Not only are they taking the car, they’re bringing it back after it’s been in an accident with no gas, no oil and the tires flat.

The truth is “The Fairness Doctrine” was illegal at its conception. It was never given fair Congressional scrutiny. It was an FCC regulation. As with most losses of freedom in this country, a bunch of unelected, self important bureaucrats woke up one morning and decided to impose their wills on the rest of us.  And in the year 1920 there might have been a point to such regulations. But in the year 2011 with Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, Youtube, a multitude of blog sites, hundreds of TV channels, Sirius, XM and other stations, “Fairness” is a very dated FCC regulation. The idea that politicians can’t present their opinions and ideas to their voters is insane.

 It’s also not the point.

The whole reason for “Fairness” is to silence their critics. To me, this is the most sinister part of the debate. Whereas in the 20’s politicians made pie in the sky arguments about diversity of opinion, politicians today will come out and proudly list by name the people they want taken off the air. The most egregious act was the US Senate sending a letter to Rush Limbaugh’s boss.

And every day seems to bring a new attack on the power to discuss what is going on in the realm of politics.

There is no doubt that in the next year as we move in to a Presidential election; the FCC will move to impose some form of censorship on the airwave, especially if Barack Obama is losing in the polls. The Feds have already started by forcing “Net Neutrality” rules on internet service providers last December. This move was taken after the Supreme Court stated in no uncertain terms that the internet was outside the jurisdiction of the FCC. If the agency will ignore the courts, then it is not unreasonable to think that it would also ignore the Congress and do anything it wants.

This is before the reports of bloggers critical of the powers that be getting visits from the Feds.

In order for any real Republic to operate, there needs to be the ability of the people to discuss and criticize their government without fear. That means people need to be able to talk without inhibitions, regulations or prohibitions. At least, this is how our government is supposed to work.