@parados,
parados wrote:
I think we can all agree that if a government said anyone that agrees with the government can use bullhorns and anyone that doesn't agree with us that uses a bullhorn will go to jail, then such a country would not have free speech.
Yes, I suppose, but that's not what we are faced with.
The intent of the Fairness Doctrine (even viewing it in the most kindly of lights) was never to provide every point of view with the opportunity to have a turn with the bullhorn.
In our society today, I'm not sure that there exists a point of view that cannot connect with a potentially large audience through any number of media.
As has been pointed out, someone has to exercise control over radio waves or you would likely turn on your radio and either hear nothing but chaos or only the broadcasts of those with enough money to generate the strongest signals. If it's not the government, who should it be?
The Fairness Doctrine, or at least the effort to resurrect it, is designed to neuter Conservative Talk Radio, pure and simple. Liberal Talk Radio has tried and been far less successful, but no one can make the argument that only conservative viewpoints can be heard on American airwaves. No can argue that an effort to establish a radio station which aired only liberal viewpoints was somehow denied by the government.
If opposing viewpoints have an equal opportunity to take to the airwaves, why is it incumbent upon the government to insure they get equal airing?
