Debt Free

Imagine if you will; you’re a blogger. No, not the app, a person running a blog. If some in congress and others in our society have their way, your blog could be shut down if you don’t give what is, in their view a, and this is really ironic, a “fair and balanced” point of view. The first amendment……well, that’s just words on paper, and we know paper is a living, breathing document. Well, I guess it was alive once. 

Part of the appeal of blogs is that they reflect the personal views of their creators. It matters not what those views may be or who they may offend. That too is part of the appeal. There used to be this little piece of legislation you may have heard of called the “Fairness Doctrine” That bit of legalese states that broadcasters must treat issues of public policy or importance in an “honest, equal and balanced manner”.  Although it would seem that would violate the First Amendment, they slid around that bit of prose by reasoning that the airwaves, unlike print media, the airwaves were of a “limited nature”.

Well, take a look at the Internet. That bit of info pipeline that sucks away endless hours of your week could easily be interpreted in much the same way. After all, most people don’t have a broadband modem hardwired into their brains, although I do know some people….. Anyway, you get the point. If certain elements of Congress, mainly Democrats, (those champions of the little guy, correct?) get their way, they’ll use the Fairness Doctrine to require broadcasters to present both sides of an issue. Why is Congressman Dennis Kucinich so insistent on violating our right to free speech in the name of furthering our rights? Why, indeed?

Never mind that everybody has a freakin’ channel changing button on their radios or address window on their browser. But hey, if you can’t beat Limbaugh or Hannity in the marketplace, you can probably get the congress to require the stations carrying them to balance the amount of time they are on the air with shows presenting an opposing viewpoint; too bad for the station owners that those shows have failed to demonstrate economic viability.

In 1986, the DC Court of Appeals ruled that a prior decision under President Regan’s FCC that the Doctrine was a violation of the First Amendment could stand. A year later, the FCC decided that the Doctrine did, in fact violate the First Amendment, and repealed it in the 1987 Syracuse Peace Council decision, paving the way for the huge conservative talk radio industry we know today, among other things. One of those other things happen to be the blogosphere. What if you’re running a conservative Blog, such as Michelle Malkin’s or presenting a Liberally oriented carnival, such as Carnival of the Liberals? Not too balanced, are they? Well, too damned bad, you better broaden your point of view, or turn into Hannity and Colmes.

Initially, the Doctrine would target only broadcast media. You know that it would only be a matter of time, about 10 seconds, before they start looking at blogs as well. If you’ve got a blog, look out! Oh, yes it can happen here. Which of the big bloggers has the resources to challenge this in court, if in fact those powers that be deem that it should return? Those same Democrats that are clamoring for the return of the Doctrine to protect their flank from the conservative radio talk shows would crap their pants if it was used to clamp down on something that they present a one-sided argument on, or one of their lefty blogs. Could this extend to movies as well? Talk about an Inconvenient Truth.