ONLINE ONLY: Fairness -- liberal style

If you dislike Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, that's fine -- go voice your opposing views, but don't cut them off from voicing theirs. That is, unfortunately, exactly what certain Democrats are up to now: rather than intelligently debating the issues, they are seeking government mandate to shut down the airwaves by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.\nThis concept was born from an antiquated idea of government regulation of speech.\nThe government officially owned airspace in 1927 under the premise that available television and radio frequencies were scarce (not true anymore) and needed to be rationed by government-granted license. In 1934, regulation was given to the newly established Federal Communications Commission, which in 1949 stepped up the regulation by adopting the Fairness Doctrine. This new regulation required that both sides of the spectrum to be given equal airtime on controversial issues of public importance.\nThe doctrine was finally repealed in 1987 when the FCC decided it inhibited rather than advanced debate.\nIn 2005, a number of Democratic congressmen -- including Louise Slaughter and Maurice Hinchey (both D-N.Y. -- did I even need to say that?) -- proposed the Media Reform Act, whose terms include "fairness in broadcasting" and "diversity" of views. They want the doctrine to be law, not just FCC regulation.\nSo, this is how liberals deal with unpopularity. Air America, a liberal talk-radio station, has been a colossal failure because radio audiences simply don't buy into those ideas. They'd rather have Rush, Sean, Bill O'Reilly and all the rest.\nThere can be no doubt that the Fairness Doctrine is specifically intended to hamper conservative talk shows, since that has historically been its effect. Bill Ruddee, a member of the Kennedy administration, blatantly admitted to using the Fairness Doctrine "to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters."\nSo, rather than competing in different ways in the free market, they want to eliminate its freedom altogether. This brings up a larger issue: liberals can only rule by fiat. They so fiercely defend Roe and the Fairness Doctrine because if these decisions were left to the majority as they properly should, the vote would not be with them.\nTo enforce their outdated and socialistic principles, the only avenue is by undemocratic decree. That is elitism at its most haughty -- and it totally out of line with the spirit of this country.\nI doubt this liberal attempt to hijack the airwaves will be successful -- the genie of conservative talk-radio is already out of the bottle. But if by some fluke the doctrine does become law, conservatives should call out this hypocrisy and beat the Fairness Doctrine into a two-edged sword. Require the "New York Times" to balance out its Nicholas Kristof and Maureen Dowd; force balance into the notoriously liberal MSNBC news; and have ABC give us a counterweight to Diane Sawyer.\nI doubt liberals will like these proposals -- they don't want fairness, they want control. Total control. If anyone values true freedom of speech and the right of broadcasting corporations to choose their own audiences and programming, then they should oppose tooth and nail this so-called "Fairness Doctrine" proposal.