Oh My, what will the Liberals do now?
The Fairness Doctrine has replaced Gay Marriage as the scare tactic of the Republican Party. Much like Gay Marriage, they only get fired up about it when an election year approaches.
Now, the obvious goal of the Fairness Doctrine is to remove Rush Limbaugh, Shaun Hannity, and too many other conservative hosts on Talk Radio from the airwaves. The side effect may be right here, on the net.
There is in fact, a thread of thought that would require the Fairness Doctrine to apply to the internet. Yes, the net. So sites which stifle alternate speech, like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and so many others which ban conservatives and even liberals who speak out against Democrats and Democratic Candidates may be forced by law to allow Conservatives to post.
That would be the death of the Nutroots by the way. Democratic Underground for example states that they are there to support Democratic Party candidates and the Democratic Party. From experience there, don't try and support the Green Party, or say that Nader is right, or anything like that. They will ban you with a quickness because you are not supporting the Democratic Party or their view of Progressive Ideals.
So what will become of the ability of the Nutroot leaders to control and direct the nutroots? What will happen when the Green Party demands equal time under the Fairness Doctrine? If a post highlighting the more progressive ideals of one party over the Democrats is removed, then the site would probably have violated the Fairness Doctrine.
Don't worry about that though, because you can bet money that Nancy Pelosi who has said she supports the fairness doctrine, will be sure to write the law so it doesn't apply to Liberal sites.
What is the biggest problem with the Fairness doctrine? It's a lie. In the modern world everyone can post a webpage, like this one, and put their ideals out there. They may be widely read, or they may be ignored. However, the public has the choice, the information is not filtered or restricted. Freedom means the free exchange of ideals, certainly, but it also means the ability to congregate with like minded people. That by the way is what you normally call friends. Let's say the Fairness Doctrine is applied to a group of friends. The people in question are all Vegans, and love animals. The Fairness Doctrine would require that anyone who wishes to join the group could, and the group would have to do what that person wanted as often as they do whatever someone else wants to.
What would happen if the Vegans were told they had to go hunting with this person? They had to try and do something they find personally reprehensible to make sure that individuals rights were not violated? It is an asinine certainly, but it is essentially the rule of the fairness doctrine. You have to sit through things you don't like in order to make things fair.
There are lots of places to get the information from any side you like. The net certainly, but also television. Public Access TV, Free Speech TV is also one of those sites. The Fairness doctrine is a lie, because the only fairness, is that no one really gets to say anything. If it is a controversial ideal, then the information is not aired because if it is, then you have to offer equal time to lunatics who want to comment on it. Imagine a in depth report on the 9-11 attack. For the next three months, you have a new lunatic every day who is claiming that his or her own personal conspiracy theory is the only true one on the same show to insure equal time.
The Fairness Doctrine is the answer the Liberals say they want, and the reason is to shut up the Conservatives who have been successful on the radio. The Liberals haven't found that success, and it's not from lack of trying, it's from the simple problem that they are bereft of ideals. All they have is insults and personal attacks. They don't debate, they don't discuss ideals, they insult and shout down the speaker of the other side.
Air America, and every other liberal radio ideal has failed, because they don't understand how Limbaugh and Hannity actually do it. They're entertaining and informative people. Limbaugh for example will highlight an argument from the left, and then proceed to dissect it and demonstrate how it's flawed. He'll highlight historical examples, and this is unfair apparently. One of the few successful Liberals on the radio or TV is Alan Colmes who is on TV and Radio with Fox News. Unlike most Liberals who try and do a TV or Radio show, Colmes is able to highlight the point he's trying to make, and do so in an entertaining and informative manner. I've written him a few times and told him how much I respect him despite our disagreements on specific issues. Colmes never resorts to the pathetic personal attack. He may highlight a bit of comedy, but he does so as part of the larger discussion, sort of like Limbaugh. He doesn't coin terms like Feminazi, but he does do a very good job of highlighting the Liberal message while being entertaining.
Air America failed at this. All the Liberal radio networks and shows think they have someone to answer Limbaugh. Each answer is either so dry and disjointed as to be confusing, Ed Koch for example, or they are nothing but derision towards Republicans and Conservatives. Often calling for harm to befall the individual.
The Fairness Doctrine is a lie, and should be rejected as an anathema of Freedom of Speech as well as freedom of association. It isn't fair, unless repression of free speech is your idea of fairness.
Oh one last thing Libs. Conservatives worked for years to shut Howard Stern up, and managed only in making him rich on Satellite Radio. Think about that, Limbaugh could easily rule the Satellite Radio waves. Imagine an all Limbaugh channel, where the entire day is spent replaying highlights and the last weeks shows. That would be a nightmare for you all on the left, 24 hours of Limbaugh, all day, every day.