Posted by
Always To The Right on Saturday, March 14, 2009 2:54:58 PM
This is from an excellent post on the Hot Air website. This section deals with the "Canadian Civil Rights Commission." This last few paragraphs deal with the [non] Fairness Doctrine and what it would do.
This points out one of the problems of governmental management of
political speech, one that has a parallel in the Fairness Doctrine.
When government sets itself as the arbiter of acceptable discourse, it
provides a path for extremists to intimidate their critics into
silence. That’s exactly what happened to Ezra Levant, who had to spend
a fortune to defend what had been a commonly-accepted Western practice
of free political speech, at least until political correctness became a
matter of law in some nations. Actual human-rights activists have
bigger fish to fry than chasing Levant for publishing the Prophet
Cartoons or criticizing political Islam. The Canadian government has
set itself up as a tool for scoundrels who want to silence critics, and
now they seem surprised to find out that their chief complainant is
simply a hater who wants to attack the people he hates through the HRC.
The Fairness Doctrine would do the same thing with talk radio.
Instead of actually promoting “diversity”, it would allow cranks to
file no-cost complaints and hold up broadcast licenses, while the
owners have to spend a fortune providing a minute-by-minute accounting
of their content during the previous licensing period to prove their
“diversity”. Even beyond the issues of the First Amendment, the fact
that the station gets enough ratings and advertisers to stay in
business should indicate that it speaks to enough of the community to
remain in business. Putting the government in charge of “balance” will
only provide a tool of mischief for those who want to silence voices
with which they cannot compete.
But let’s not forget the First Amendment and its purpose, though.
Political speech, save calls for armed insurrection, should not get
moderated by the governments that free speech is designed to keep in check.
Government-controlled speech eventually brings autocracy and then
totalitarianism. The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not a
panel of government scolds that can get easily manipulated by
extremists or the power-mad.