“Sometimes I wonder what Washington would be without fancy names for things that completely misrepresent the intent and the substance underneath.

Such is the case with the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

First introduced in 1949 and undone in 1987 by a vote of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Fairness Doctrine was a controversial regulation that required broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.”  Born from the belief that television stations using public airwaves had a duty to present all sides of political debate, the Fairness Doctrine has been used by each political party to suppress the other.  It clearly limited speech through American media outlets by saying that news broadcasts must meet FCC tests for truthfulness and balance.

If that’s not Big Brother at work, I don’t know what is.  The danger for such governmental control of the airwaves to be abused was a clear infringement on the establishment of a free press.

As disturbing as this policy was, today there is again talk of bringing the Fairness Doctrine back to life.

Americans’ political loyalties to media outlets are right in line with the freedoms and liberties accorded to us all as citizens of the United States.  If you want to get your news broadcast to you from Mars, that’s fine with me.  But some Americans cannot abide the presentation of current events in a light they disagree with or oppose for political reasons.  Their impulse to censor runs contrary to everything that is great about our democracy.

Even more frustrating, there is no reason for Americans to be subjected to the limitations of a Fairness Doctrine during an age of unprecedented communications and media technologies.  Cable television, the Internet, and satellite radio combine with traditional media outlets to assure that – if you want to – you can watch or listen to the news 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the rest of your life.  Cable television removes the concern that public airwaves compel certain responsibilities from broadcasters since the means of transmission are privately owned and operated.

In the last Congress, a legislative effort failed which would have revived the Fairness Doctrine after more than 20 years in mothballs.  This Congress, several elected officials and even presidential candidates have raised the specter of the Fairness Doctrine in an effort to restore its powers to the FCC.  Their fear of a national media which is free to express multiple points of view has driven them to try to control access to it by Americans of diverse points of view.

That’s more than wrong – it also says that the interest of some elected officials in their office is to wield dangerous power. 

Fortunately, there are plenty of public servants who share my staunch view that a free people require a free press.  When the government gets in the business of controlling the information we get from our news, government control of other parts of our lives is not far behind.

Even the name is disingenuous: the Fairness Doctrine.  Let’s call this what it is – an unnecessary expansion of federal powers and an un-American doctrine of censorship.”