Battle for Free Speech

Senator Jim DeMint has put forth the Broadcast Freedom Act banning the Fairness Doctrine. At the same time, Senator Durbin has offered an amendment which will impose the fairness doctrine through FCC regulations.

The Fairness Doctrine is a clever name. Who doesn't want to be fair? If liberals truly wanted fairness, they would be talking about balancing the liberal-leaning television news, Hollywood, newspapers and more. These liberals don't want to be fair though. They want to silence the voices of dissent. In actuality, it is a censorship doctrine. By trying to force a balance of ideas on radio, the government stomps all over free speech. Powers that be, which are supposed to be representing the people who elected them, are instead trying to determine to whom and to what people listen. Apparently, we don't have the sense to choose for ourselves.

News from Senator DeMint on the Senate floor yesterday:

• Senator Durbin says "the contents of media should reflect the diversity of America." translation: DC politicians decide what Americans hear.


• The Durbin amendment passed 57 – 41. All the GOP opposed it. Democrats exposed their plans to impose the fairness doctrine in the backdoor by FCC regulation .


• The Broadcast Freedom Act ban Fairness Doctrine also passed. Victory for free speech.


• Senator DeMint: We have closed the front door on Fairness Doctrine, but the Durbin amendment opens back door to censorship. The fight goes on.


• The ban on Fairness Doctrine passes 87-11. But the fight is not over, Democrats have attacked from back door on media ownership and localism.

Senator Durbin argued that what he was proposing is already in place. So why propose it? Hmm? He's hoping that by forcing diversity in ownership, less airtime will be given to conservatism.

Let's think about this: Diversity in ownership. Who determines diversity? Is it male/female? Black/White/Hispanic? Republican/Democrat? Christian/Atheist/Muslim? I suggest it will be whichever promotes liberal viewpoints. They may have to switch it up in order to find "the right balance."

The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." To silence or ration the voices of dissent is unethical and unconstitutional.