Al-Qaida and Fairness Doctrine

Today I would like to discuss the proposed reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine in a way no one else has.

First let me say there is another name for government regulating political speech to determine what is fit and proper and ensuring all sides of an issue are heard. It's called censorship. And it is not only anathema to all we hold dear in America, it is unconstitutional, totally at odds with the First Amendment and the founders' idea that there should be no bounds on political speech.

TRENDING: Poll: Stunning number say Biden suffers 'cognitive ailment'

Yet, there is a more practical objection to re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine in our increasingly morally relativistic culture.

Taken to its logical extreme, a radio talk-show host who condemns al-Qaida for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America would have the responsibility to balance those views with others. For instance, there could be demands from the following:

• Those who believe 9-11 was actually a giant U.S. government conspiracy;

• Those who believe al-Qaida's actions were justified because of U.S. meddling in the Muslim world;

• Al-Qaida itself.

Now, you may view this idea as preposterous. No one would take these demands seriously, you might say.

But why not?

If "fairness" means "balance," then these demands should be taken just as seriously as those of Democrats who think they have been slighted by Rush Limbaugh or Republicans who think they have been given the shaft by Air America.

In other words, the Fairness Doctrine enforcement bureaucracy could never consider "truth" in the equation. It could never consider who is "right" or "wrong." It could only consider whether someone using the public airwaves did not present all sides of a story.

The proposition is so ludicrous on its face it is amazing to me that anyone living outside a mental institution or a working anywhere but on a university campus could seriously suggest it.

Never before in history has there been so much information available to people. Everybody's got an opinion and a blog and a podcast of their own. Why on earth would politicians choose this time and this place for such a draconian, Stalinist, evil proposal?

I'll tell you why.

You just witnessed the reason.

The people spoke loud and clear on the issue of immigration. Their opinions were galvanized by talk radio. Their activism was boosted and channeled by talk radio. Their victory in the U.S. Senate was made possible by talk radio.

Now it's retribution time. The political and cultural elite don't like it when they don't get their way – when the riff-raff like you and me mess things up.

So they are coming after talk radio.

This is going to be one of the biggest showdowns in the history of American politics.

Already, Sens. John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have spoken out in favor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Kerry even went so far as to call for bringing back the equal-time provisions, which would mandate not just "fairness" in broadcasts but actual minute-for-minute, second-by-second measurements of what is said on the public airwaves.

As we approach Independence Day, it's a good time to consider just how hopelessly un-American these people and their ideas are.

The Fairness Doctrine is the antithesis of freedom. It is meant to stifle free, open and lively exchanges of opinion. It is designed to control the flow of information. It is worthy only of a totalitarian society, not the birthplace of self-government and the free press.

Kerry and company can put as much lipstick on this pig as they like, but there's still no disguising this oinker. They are showing their true colors this Independence Day – and they are not red, white and blue.

Order Farah's brand new book, "Stop the Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution"