Lies the government told you by Andrew Napolitano (best e reader for epub TXT) 📗

tandem with Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937, which mandated that radio stations offer “equal opportunity” to all legal candidates for specific offices if it permitted one candidate to use its airwaves.32

In 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States expressed its approval of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, which involved a Pennsylvania radio station that had aired a “Christian Crusade” program attacking author Fred J. Cook.33 Exercising his right under the Fairness Doctrine, Cook requested time to rebut the program’s attacks. Red Lion, however, did not grant Cook’s request. The FCC prosecuted Red Lion’s infraction, and the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine, ruling against the broadcast company.

The Court ruled that it made sense that with the limited spectrum on which to broadcast, it was only “fair” that stations be obligated to represent both sides of issues. The Fairness Doctrine, however, had the effect of censoring speech because it induced stations to steer clear of controversial topics that may be reported to the FCC.34 It also forced speech, a concept as antithetical to freedom as suppressed speech. As a result, very few stations did opinion pieces, and talk radio was relatively bland.35

By the 1980s, with the rise of cable television and the growing number of channels available, many more voices could be heard in the “marketplace of ideas.”36 Seeing little reason to continue the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC, in 1985, issued its “Fairness Report,” recognizing the Doctrine’s chilling effect on free expression.37 In 1987, the FCC voted unanimously to cease enforcement of the Doctrine, stating that “[t]he Fairness Doctrine, on its face, violates the First Amendment and contravenes the public interest.”38 So, the government is in essence admitting that it created and implemented an unconstitutional doctrine for decades and now it just says, “Oops, my bad”?

Especially now, there is no place for the Fairness Doctrine in talk radio. Today, news and opinions are literally everywhere. There are six cable news stations representing a plethora of political views. The Internet is a treasure trove of information and perspectives. There are hundreds of blogs and news Web sites specifically geared toward every possible political persuasion. In today’s world, the Fairness Doctrine also runs contrary to the idea of the “marketplace of ideas.” Markets are supposed to be “free,” not artificial. “Free” can only mean free from regulation by the government.

The great part about the freedom of expression is that it sparks debate among competing viewpoints without restriction. By forcing a radio station to represent both viewpoints, a station cannot take a solid position on the issues. The Fairness Doctrine essentially dilutes the station’s opinions, rather than providing fair coverage.

Furthermore, commercial radio stations are in business to make money; they get no outside funding. They must attract listeners so that they can attract advertisers and turn a profit. If talk radio stations do not give the people what they want, listeners will likely shop elsewhere. Liberals may want to hear conservative viewpoints, and vice versa, but they do not want opposing ideas to drown out their own views. Put another way, a New York Yankee fan may want to know what’s going on in Boston, but won’t necessarily want to be exposed to Red Sox propaganda on a New York-area radio station.

The First Amendment—which everyone in government has sworn to uphold—mandates that individuals be free to listen as well as free to speak.

It is important to realize the hazardous effects of the Fairness Doctrine and understand that its implementation is violative of the First Amendment and will only weaken the level of debate in this country.

Caution!

Another potential form of censorship, outside of the Fairness Doctrine, is a new bill that President Obama signed into law on October 28th 2009. This law, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, contains very troubling language.39 According to the Act:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, Internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support, severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

This potential law can lead to “thought crimes” committed by radio or television hosts, or even Internet bloggers who are intentionally hostile toward any person, but do not actually intimidate or cause substantial emotional distress to the intended audience.

Part of First Amendment doctrine states that speakers cannot be prosecuted because they say things that merely offend people. This law, however, can be used to violate the First Amendment by permitting the federal government to prosecute people for simply intending to be offensive. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act can cause disastrous results and seriously restrict the freedom of speech. Victims of hate crimes, as well as potential victims, must be protected, but the protection cannot criminalize offensive speech. Change the channel, move the dial, boycott the products, but leave speech alone.

Conclusion

The government has historically attempted to undermine the First Amendment, and it is a foregone conclusion that it will continue to do so. We have learned over the years that Congress will abridge the freedom of speech. It is up to the courts and more importantly, we the people, to notice government invasion of this sacred right and to fight to eliminate it.

Lie #6

“The Right of the People to Keep

and Bear Arms Shall Not Be

Infringed”

After the Constitution of the United States had been enacted and the issue of the Bill of Rights rose to the forefront, the Second Amendment was “passed [by] the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate.”1 The debate that did exist was centered on whether or not the right to keep and bear arms actually needed to be articulated in the Constitution, since many saw it as a natural and thus fundamental right that could not be taken away by any government, absent due process. George Washington called the Second Amendment the teeth that gave