The ongoing battle for the right to Free Speech continues as democrats attempt to breathe new life into the Fairness Doctrine, which “required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials” (Rendall). It is past tense, because it was an FCC rule from 1949 to 1987 when it was repealed by Ronald Reagan’s administration. One view is that it should be brought back, usually citing one-sided politically-leaning news reports that leave out the opposite opinion, or that slant the information. However, one of the reasons the law was repealed in 1987 had much to do with the inception of cable television; the exponential widening of the television market that would inevitably bring to light the other viewpoints. But, it’s not just TV the democrats are looking to balance.

            Talk radio is the larger faction that has the left crying, “Unfair!” The recent ratings for conservative talk shows are higher than ever with such talent as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, and Neal Boortz. In an attempted response, Air America Radio was created to get the voice of the left heard by a larger audience. The company filed for bankruptcy protection in October of 2006 due to very low ratings after only about 1 year. It has recently made a come back, utilizing the internet to stream the programming since local broadcasters forecast a loss of income if they were to bring them on to their networks.

            Because radio stations would have to abide by the Fairness Doctrine if it were passed, the left sees a way to essentially force their opinions to be heard, even though apparently not many people want to hear them. Here’s where the catch-22 lies:

“Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to stockholders to increase shareholder value by operating the business in a manner which seeks to maximize shareholder value. Marketing and research done into radio audiences and listener-ship and consumer choice has shown that conservative talk radio is very popular. By forcing people who own radio frequencies to provide equal time to all viewpoints, these companies will be forced to conduct their business in a manner which is contrary to the notion of maximizing shareholder value. The government will be manipulating the marketplace, and reducing the incentive for the radio stations to provide what their audiences truly want” (Rob).

            The idea of the government stepping in to force the balance of views in direct conflict with the business by essentially censoring one side is treading on the premise of free speech itself. Sean Hannity’s grilling of Ohio democratic Congressman and Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich really makes you question the reasoning when he said, “I don’t need you, a government bureaucrat, to decide what’s fair” (Kucinich). Throughout the interview, Kucinich skirted questions by arguing that he didn’t have ample time to respond, when he never really had an answer to the questions he was asked.

            Alan Colmes (who had a talk radio show during the Fairness Doctrine) brings up in the same interview that it’s no longer a few broadcast networks from which the public gets information, now we have the internet and other platforms for content. He claims that in addition, “stations back away from any programming where they have to answer to a government bureaucracy” (Kucinich).

            The Fairness doctrine does have drawbacks that have not been widely publicized. For example, the bankruptcies of stations because the general public does not want to hear or see the content we are forced to, since they can get what they want on the internet, on cable television, and on satellite radio. This will not stop the government from trying to intervene, though, especially if they have the opportunity to make a dollar off of it and blame its shortcomings on the other side.

            But the Democrats and Republicans are meddling with free speech in different ways, and for different reasons. The right wants to keep language it deems explicit and nudity off the public airwaves, but do not have solid guidelines to compare one questionable instance with another. Even medical terminology has been edited from shows that air between 6AM and 10PM (when FCC regulations apply) for fear that a minor could hear them.

Howard Stern has long been the whipping boy for the FCC. Throughout his career he and the networks which carried him (until his exodus to unregulated satellite radio) have received thousands of dollars in fines. His FM radio show aired from 6AM to around 11AM on stations across the country. Before moving to satellite radio, he was fined for discussing a certain method of oral sex. Stern complained in response that,

“Oprah Winfrey [had] aired a show in which the topics revolved largely around oral sex amongst other sexual acts. And though Oprah has hosted shows pertaining to some rather sensitive subjects, there was no redeeming educational value to what Oprah's guest had to say. …The guest, noted in a transcript as ‘Michelle,' spoke with no reservation and in rather graphic detail about a less than conventional sexual act. The subject matter discussed on that episode of Oprah Winfrey's talk show directly paralleled the subject discussed by Howard Stern and his guests. Yet it is Stern who is hit with a fine,” (Farah).

While it can be argued that Stern crossed the line with his show, the fact that Oprah had received no fine or warning for her show shows that the FCC has the opportunity to pick and choose what to go after and does not have to apply the same rules to everyone.

Don Imus was fired from CBS radio earlier this year for referring to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “a bunch of nappy-headed hos.” From a technical standpoint, this did not violate FCC rules and regulations. He was hired over 30 years ago to be what could be argued the first shock jock. Rep. Donald M. Payne said in a statement regarding the Imus comment, “Let me add, as a federal official, that it is time that the FCC start doing its job by halting the use of racial and gender slurs over the public airwaves. As long as there is weak enforcement, there will continue to be hate language used by so-called "shock jocks"” (Payne). He ignored the use of the slurs anywhere else in the mainstream media today (particularly in music), as well as the fact that the particular phrase in question is permissible under the FCC’s regulations. Nonetheless, CBS radio and MSNBC fired him. The government would have you believe that these comments should never have been allowed to begin with. But why would a radio station fire someone for doing his job?

Radio shock jocks, Greg “Opie” Hughes and Anthony Cumia have recently gone back on the air on XM Satellite Radio following a thirty day suspension, believed to be for crude sexual comments about prominent female figures. What may surprise you in this case is that they were not forced off the air because of FCC violations, or speech not covered by the first amendment, but were suspended by XM Satellite Radio executives. Because XM is a pay service, it is outside of the FCC’s jurisdiction and does not have to follow the rules terrestrial radio does. Los Angeles Times staff writers Jim Puzzanghera and Amy Kaufman claim in their May 17^th 2007 article that the fury over the suspension has nothing to do with the comments that were made by the DJs, but at XM’s reaction (Puzzanghera). They also note that “industry observers” believe that the suspension was a move to protect XM’s pending merger with Sirius.

            The real reason for XM’s suspension of O&A was over the duo complaining that they were forced to apologize and they didn’t appreciate the seriousness of the problem they caused. By taking Opie & Anthony off the air, it shows that XM will not tolerate unpopular speech, even though XM’s regular advertisements refer to them as completely uncensored and warn that they are on an explicit language-containing station. This move backfired to an extent for the company, as shortly following the suspension, thousands of XM subscribers cancelled their service and some advertisers pulled their money back for not supporting free speech in an unregulated medium.

            It all comes down to one thing…money. In the case of Imus, advertisers threatened to pull money away from CBS and MSNBC in hopes that their names wouldn’t be associated with a “racist” scandal. Add to that a pending boycott by Rev. Al Sharpton et al. XM’s pending merger with Sirius has a significant dollar amount attached to it. The corporations see a bottom line and figure that rather than see any of the money in front of their faces disappear, they’ll remove the problem that has brought them millions of dollars over the years.

On at least one occasion, Steve Harvey’s radio program broadcasted the redneck news, where people laid on thick Southern accents and portrayed all Southerners as ignorant. There are radio shows that air regularly that call for the destruction of the inferior-white race, and have every right to do so. “The US Supreme Court's decision in the case of Virginia v. Black, which concerned the government's power to punish cross-burning, stated that no symbol, no matter how offensive, can be deemed beyond the pale and outside the scope of the First Amendment’s protection,” (Chemerinsky). What is more, the words of Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan’s majority decision of Texas vs. Johnson in 1989 stated “If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” (Farah).

Broadcast news is no longer safe either. “Unless the FCC clarifies whether stations can be penalized just for reporting the news, the indecency ruling [containing the words “regardless of context”] is tantamount to censorship. News managers living in fear of a career-ending fine could base coverage decisions not on news value but on the risk that profanity might get on the air. As a result, journalists may be hamstrung in their ability to report the whole truth,” (Potter).

Imagine our grandchildren watching speeches from MLK, where half of the words are censored because words like Negro and hate are no longer acceptable. The repeated censoring of words from our language will continue to plague the nation until we are not allowed to speak what is simply unpopular. Conservative talk show host Neal Boortz once said, “Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.” Along those same lines, “Free speech is one of the most important weapons the citizenry have to defend themselves against dictators and tyrants, which is why they want to destroy it. By their own attempts to silence opposition, multiculturalists confirm their own totalitarian pedigree. Hate crime legislation and communal libel are not about protecting vulnerable people. They are designed to intimidate opponents and where that fails to punish them and to deter further dissenters,” (Ellis).

It’s not just the radio waves and TV stations that are at risk. The voices of college students are in the proverbial crosshairs. “Destructive and anti-intellectual forces that threaten free speech and independent thought have taken root across the country. College students are often harassed - and occasionally punished - for holding "unpopular" viewpoints, or those that don't conform to the campus climate. It’s easy to overlook this quiet assault on free speech and free expression that has plagued many higher education institutions in recent years. It is often couched in terms of ‘protecting’ the feelings of one group from another, or prohibiting ‘hate speech’ or ‘insensitive’ speech,” (Boehner).

Have you ever said, “That’s so gay?” When a few classmates teased Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, “Do you have 10 moms?” she shot back: “That’s so gay.” After Rice got a warning and a notation in her file, her parents sued, claiming officials at Santa Rosa’s Maria Carillo High violated their daughter’s free speech rights when they disciplined her for uttering a phrase that ‘enjoys widespread currency in youth culture’,” (Leff).

Boehner, Rep. John A. “Defending Academic Freedom On Campusus [sic].” Fed News Service, Including US State News 17 March 2006. Research Library. ProQuest. Kennesaw State University Lib., Kennesaw, GA. 21 Jul 07 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1014258231&Fmt=3&clientId=16627&RQT=309&VName=PQD>.

Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Striking a Balance on Hate Speech.” Trial 39.7 (2003): 78.

Ellis, Frank. “From Communism’s ‘Enemy of the People’ to PC’s ‘Hate Criminal.’” The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 30 (2005): 99-119. Research Library. ProQuest. Kennesaw State University Lib., Kennesaw, GA. 21 Jul 07 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=831627921&Fmt=3&clientId=16627&RQT=309&VName=PQD>.

Farah, Amanda. “The Federal Communications Commission and Censorship; Where Should We Draw the Line?” Associated Content. 19 Oct. 2006. AC. 22 July 2007 <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/72135/the_federal_communications_commission.html?>.

Kucinich, Dennis. Interview with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. Hannity & Colmes. Fox News, New York. 29 Jan 2007. 25 June 2007 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfqsFLoUgQ>. 

Leff, Lisa. “Student Lawsuit in U.S. Hinges on Whether ‘That’s So Gay’ is an Anti-Gay Putdown.” International Herald Tribune 28 Feb. 2007. 12 July 2007 <http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/28/america/NA-GEN-US-So-Gay.php>. 

Payne, Rep. Donald M. “Rep. Payne Praises Young Women Of Rutgers’ Basketball Team; Calls On FCC To Enforce Law Against Hate Speech.” Fed News Service, Including US State News 10 April 2007. Research Library. ProQuest. Kennesaw State University Lib., Kennesaw, GA. 21 Jul 07 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1253937231&Fmt=3&clientId=16627&RQT=309&VName=PQD>.

Potter, Deborah. “Indecent Oversight: The FCC’s crackdown on profanity could lead to censorship.” FCC Censorship - Satellite Radio Regulation FCC - Censorship satellite radio XM satellite radio and Sirius Satellite Radio Reviews 2004. Top Satellite Radio. 12 July 2007 <http://www.topsatelliteradio.com/satellite-radio-fcc-regulation.html>.

Puzzanghera, Jim & Amy Kaufman “Listeners Shocked by XM Hosts’ Suspension; Many Cancel the Service. Some Suspect a Proposed Merger With Sirius is a Factor in the Punishment.” Los Angeles Times 17 May 2007: C1+.

Rendall, Steve. “The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost It, and Why We Need It Back.” FAIR.org. 2005. FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. 25 June 2007 <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053>.