Anthology of Ideas

History has shown us that it takes as much government influence to protect free speech as it does to deny it. The government sometimes seems like a spinning top; one moment it is denying a form of free speech and another it is protecting a different form of free speech. For a large part of the last century the government, more specifically the FCC, had a policy called the Fairness Doctrine, this policy forced the media to be unbiased and give fair and balanced reports on political issues. The Fairness Doctrine ended under the Reagan administration in 1987, but supporters are looking to revive the decades old policy. This creates an interesting question, does the government forcing balanced political speech infringe on the media’s right to free speech or is it just another way to keep the media from controlling the information available to the population of America at large? The right to free speech that does not cause immediate harm to others is our most cherished right as Americans, and we would be remised if we forced anyone, media or not, to speak in any particular way, even under the guise of being fair and balanced.

The freedom of speech is an important value to America’s continued life as a democratic republic, the founding fathers themselves found it to be important enough to make it the very first of our God given undeniable rights as Americans. But forcing a person to speak is just as bad is forcing him not to speak, to require an organization to give time to issues or political views it does not agree with, takes a news organization and turns it into an information agency, nothing but a library of currant events. Of course one could argue that the media has an obligation to the people, to give them all the facts, the truth as it were. However, the truth is not yes or no, right or wrong, black or white, it is a multi faceted prism, light enters and comes out the other side with a rainbow of colors, likewise Truth goes into the prism of the human consciousness and when it emerges from the other side it is colored with the persons perspectives. If the government begins to dictate what is or is not balanced the government will also begin to dictate what is or is not Truth. In the early part of the 20th Century Justice Holmes wrote, “the best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market [not because a single entity considers it false.]” The Truth is always colored by perception and the only way ideas can freely compete in the marketplace is for them to float unhindered throughout the marketplace.

Governmental control of media organizations should be limited to promoting free speech rather than hindering it. This includes laws that restrict monopolies by single media organizations, but not laws that require balanced news reports. The government currently has laws on the amount of the American market any single news organizations can broadcast to. These laws are needed to prevent single entities from becoming so prolific in the never-ending quest for profits that they hinder the spread of new ideas, creating in essence a sand trap in the market place of ideas. Even though the supporters of the Fairness Doctrine believe that the fairness doctrine would help to expand the viewpoints and information available, if the government was allowed to direct what the media could say, it would have the effect of a single media organization that becomes too prolific. Either scenario would cause the marketplace of ideas to become so watered down with the same repetitive thoughts and would enable it to be eventually turned into a sort of propaganda machine, all spouting the same information over and over and over.

Does the restriction on the media truly violate the first amendment? According to some yes, according to others no, a simple answer doles not exists. According to Farah the answer is yes, he says “The [fairness doctrine]”had exactly the opposite effect”it had very negative unintended consequences.” The consequences he continues to say were the number of ideas that