I told you that censorship is so important to me that I would leave the Fairness Doctrine to this blog. Now, since the Fairness Doctrine is not a household term I will give a little back ground on the contents of this piece of legislation. The Fairness Doctrine in its inception was a regulatory act by the FCC that had two basic elements: "It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters."
The spirit of the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure, that due to limited access to airwaves (there are only so many airwaves that technology can access), the information that people received from radio stations included a balance. This Doctrine was conceived in the late 1940's when the radio was a primary source of information for most American families. In the 1940's every home did not contain a TV, cable was not born, and access to the Internet was science fiction. The Doctrine was to insure that the American people had access to varying views in order to make an informed decision about matters of public interest.
Today it is an accepted view that "every home has TV" and most homes have cable/satellite and Internet. With very little effort the American public can easily access more points of view on topic of public interest than ever before. The American public in cases such as legislation and referendums can even actually read the official proposals at the affected government level. There is no shortage of information for the American citizen to access.
The push to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine which the FCC voluntarily stopped enforcing in 1987, comes almost solely from the left or liberal political body. The argument is that "Hate Radio" the right-wing ranting is taking over the airwaves and that the American public is being misled and misguided. My argument is that radio stations are like any other media companies, they are for profit enterprises that determine what they broadcast by how much money it brings in. If the liberals want more air time then they need to find a dynamic, energized, strong personality push for that person to get their own show and fully support it. Turn it into a money maker that the big boys want to have around.
The proponents of re-instating the Fairness Doctrine have one goal and that is to limit the air time of right-wing hate radio. I am not a fan of nor a listener to any of these mega radio personalities, for the most part I do not agree with them on the issues and I do not think that they always make their case, but I do support their right to voice their opinion and views. I can say the same for the left wing, again I am not a fan of nor do I listen to the likes of Alan Colmes. But again I do support their right to voice their opinions.
I believe that anytime that we, as a nation, utter the word censorship that we are headed in the wrong direction. The one and only time that I agree with and support censorship (and this can only be on a case by case basis, with a clear standard of common sense) is when the sole purpose of the "speech" is to incite violence against a specific group of individuals based on some bias of the orator. Now you may want to go back and read that sentence again.
The SOLE PURPOSE is to INCITE VIOLENCE. Proving that can be a very hard thing to do, in most instances the orator does not have the integrity to admit such hatred. For the most part such individuals are cowards. They do not have the back bone to commit the acts of violence themselves, nor do they have the fortitude to bear the responsibility of their desires fulfilled. They are weak, were probably considered insignificant by family and peers; their only source of power, their words. And this power they ply on less intelligent individuals than themselves. But they still have a right to free speech, up to the point that their sole purpose becomes the incitement of violence on their targeted group of society.
As a whole, our society has forgotten a basic premises of the founding fathers in granting us certain rights. We are entitled to enjoy our rights up to the point of infringing on the rights of others. However, we should also not use the excuse of having our rights infringed on, simply when someone expresses a thought or idea that we find uncomfortable.
I do not believe that it is any networks responsibility to ensure that your child doesn't watch inappropriate shows, that is your job as a parent. I do not believe that it is the librarian's job to make sure that the books in the collection only support your morals, we don't have to all live by your morals; and reading a book with differing ideas doesn't mean that your child will suddenly stop going to church and start dressing Gothic. By the way not going to church doesn't make one Gothic and dressing goth doesn't mean you can't be christian.
I may not agree with your point of view, but I will protect your right to voice it. I may not practice your religion, but I will protect your right to worship. I may not vote the same way that you do, but I will protect your right to vote. I may not live by your moral code, but I will protect your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The first step is to speak up against any censorship. Don't think that censoring something is right just because it is not something that you want hear. But rather ask yourself, do I want what I say to be censored, for the very same reasons that I want this censored?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
No comments:
Post a Comment