Fairness Doctrine Audio
An article published on Rassmusen Reports today stated that 47% of Americans favor government mandated political balance on TV and radio. For those who may be unfamiliar with the Fairness Doctrine, it is basically a government mandated requirement that states equal airtime will be given to both liberal and conservative political commentary. As an example, for every 5 minutes Rush Limbaugh speaks on the air, Al Franken gets 5 minutes to share his point of view.
Some reading this may be thinking, “What’s so bad about that?” At first glance it may seem to be the “fair” thing to do, so why not? The problem is that the government forcing a radio or television station to air a political pundit they do not necessarily want to, is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Some reading may say, “But they’re not limiting their free speech, they’re just making them give equal time to the opposing viewpoint.” This may seem like a logical argument at first glance, but allow me to explain my reasoning.
Let’s say a major broadcast network has a one-hour block of political commentary scheduled (this is a pretty common length of time and follows normal programming schedules), and let’s say they want their pundit to speak his position for the full hour of the commentary. Now instead of having a full hour, the pundit only has a half-hour because equal time must be given to the other side. Because the pundit cannot fully speak their position, the press has been “abridged” (def. To cut short, curtail). This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
In addition to being a violation of the First Amendment, the Fairness Doctrine is also a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution…
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
Again, a number of people may object stating that this pertains to criminal proceedings and has absolutely no applicability to the Fairness Doctrine. I would argue that the Fourth Amendment directly applies as well, and I’ll explain why.
Broadcasting networks, both television and radio, are owned by private individuals or shareholders, and are not public property (note: while some companies are publicly traded, they are owned by shareholders and not the “general public”) – they are private property. Because these companies are private property, for owners to be forced by the government to do something with their property that they did not intend to do on their own, that property in essence has been “seized” by the government (albeit temporarily). Because these seizures could have a dramatic affect on broadcast ratings and company profitability, the seizure would be unreasonable. Again, this is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Despite the numerous reasons proponents of the Fairness Doctrine come up with as to why it should be reinstated (some can be seen in the full article), the fact of the matter is that all arguments for reinstatement are silenced due to Constitutional violations. There’s a reason the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated to begin with and vetoed or threatened vetoed over the years – it fundamentally goes against the freedom and liberty guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution of the United States.
Perhaps “Blowin’ Smoke Joe Biden” or “Tokin’ Joe Biden” would be a more fitting title for the vice presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. I finally got around to watching Joe Biden’s acceptance speech from the Democratic National Convention last week, and let’s just say it was easy to see why I was in no rush to watch it. 
