Maybe it’s time for us to lock up the enemies of the Constitution.
This thought occurs to me because we have so many people running around Washington, and elsewhere, including elected officials, who are openly and actively subverting the very foundation of our country’s liberties.
I could point to dozens of examples of how they do that, including the recent thoroughly unconstitutional so-called “economic stimulus package,” little more than an old-fashioned power grab by the government power structure.
But let me focus on just one other development imminently plaguing us – the movement for government control and regulation of speech and the press, the cleverly disguised, insidious ploy to undermine and subvert the most fundamental First Amendment-protected rights to express ourselves openly, for the people to play a meaningful role in their society and to dissent.
The entirety of the First Amendment says, “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.”
This is simple language, but apparently not simple enough for some members of Congress and others who would prefer to achieve short-term political objectives and personal empowerment. They find all kinds of rationalizations to do just what the Constitution prohibits – make laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. …”
That’s what people like Bill Press and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., are proposing when they talk about passing a law to bring “balance,” or “fairness,” or “accountability,” or “diversity” to the so-called public airwaves – especially talk radio.
It’s clearly unconstitutional. But they don’t care about that. They apparently believe they are wiser than the founders of our country who understood leaders were mere men – subject to all kinds of temptations, including the temptation to consolidate their own power.
And consolidation of power, even by limiting freedom and undermining the Constitution, is exactly why we see this push for the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”
Remember this, however: The Constitution and the First Amendment precedes and trumps the concept of so-called “public airwaves.”
Remember, also, that this movement for “fairness” and “balance” and “diversity” is not about that at all. And I can prove it to you.
There is far more diversity and balance and fairness on talk radio than there is in another avenue of public life in America – one that shapes opinions and worldviews every bit as much as the media.
If achieving “fairness” and “balance” is the goal on talk radio, why not try to achieve it regarding what is taught at colleges and universities in America? Why haven’t I heard one Democrat promoting the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” suggest we need more fairness and balance in academia?
The answer is simple: Their views have dominance in that cultural institution. They have no desire to see that influence wane. They have no desire to see more balance or fairness within an institution that is almost completely under their control.
The advocates of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” might say in response: “Well, broadcasting is different because there is scarcity in radio and television signals, and the government has an obligation to see that the ‘public airwaves’ are used in the public interest.”
I have news for you: Nearly every college and university in this country takes, directly and indirectly, taxpayer funds to perform their mission. If the government has an obligation to police thought on the so-called “public airwaves,” would it not have a similar obligation to do so among colleges and universities that rely on taxpayer funding?
If you need another example of how phony and fraudulent is this notion of achieving “balance” and “fairness” through the coercive power of government, just consider the state of public broadcasting in America.
How would you like to have the airwaves filled with nothing but the kind of programming we hear and watch on National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System? Does anyone really think that would be more fair and balanced than what we have today?
The success of talk radio in the free marketplace is due primarily to one factor: It is the antidote, the alternative, if you will, to overwhelming media bias on broadcast TV, on cable TV and in newspapers – a bias with which advocates of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” seem to have no problem.
There is one thing I like about the movement for a so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” It reveals the hypocrisy of those who promote it. They are enemies of the Constitution. They are enemies of the American way of life. They are enemies of accountability. They are enemies of diversity of thought and expression. They are enemies of dissent. They are enemies of balance. They are enemies of truth. They are even enemies of fairness.
