I pride myself on my knowledge of the Constitution.  It's a great document... despite it's age... or maybe because of it's age.  One of those pesky rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution is freedom of speech.  More accurately, it prohibits Congress (and also the states by extension through the 14th Amendment) from passing any law which abridges the freedom of speech.  It's pretty clear on this point, even if people enjoy ignoring it.

Nowhere does it ever say that I can or can't say certain things, and it also doesn't say that in order to say something, I have to find someone who is willing to say the opposite before I can say what I want.  And yet, that is exactly what many people think ought to happen when it comes to certain types of media... especially radio.  It's called "the fairness doctrine".  There's been some debating between Patrick McIlheran and Brew City Brawler about it of late, and now Jay is joining in.  Jay's contribution is to quote Trent Lott who said:

Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.

First of all, you'll never win an argument with me by quoting a politician about freedom of speech.  That's like quoting a gang banger on how crime isn't that bad.  Politicians these days live to restrain speech... see the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform laws if you need more proof.  They pass law after law doing it... so of course they'd be in favor of the fairness doctrine.

What I find to be the most interesting is how disingenuous both sides are regarding the debate.  Usually it centers around this idea that the "media" is either liberal or conservative.  Liberals think the media is conservative, while conservatives think it's liberal.  What's funny is to look at the evidence they cite.  If you pay attention, they really only prove that the "media" is pretty much in the middle.

Liberals point you to talk radio (WTMJ and WISN in Milwaukee), and cable news outlets like Fox News.  Conservatives point you to many newspapers (like the Journal Sentinel and New York Times) and other cable news outlets like CNN and MSNBC.  When liberals talk about how conservative the media is, they talk about talk radio as if the newspaper doesn't count as media.  Conservatives do the same thing but in the opposite direction.  It's actually pretty funny.

The problem is that both sides only look at one particular type of media to prove their argument about being unfair, instead of looking at all forms of media on the whole.  Where the Journal tends to slant liberal, talk radio makes up for it.  Where CNN and MSNBC slants liberal, Fox News makes up for it.  All sides are being represented fairly... as long as you look at the media fairly.  We don't need each type of media to be fair individually.  We don't need to pass a law to make it work that way either.  It will naturally occur because people demand it, and organizations will always come in to fill that need.

Of course my favorite part of the fairness doctrine argument revolves around how people talk about "the public airwaves".  First of all, the only reason the airwaves have been declared "public" at all, is through an unconstitutional federal agency called the FCC.  The airwaves are in fact not public at all.  Frequencies and transmission towers are owned by private companies and used to transmit information, just like newspapers own printing presses, and use paper to transmit information.  Anyone can tune in, or not tune in as they please, just like anyone can buy a paper or not.  Calling the "airwaves" public is a non sequitur used by people who want to justify censorship.

You of course are free to disagree.  But before you counter my arguments in the comments, please do me one favor.  Make sure any counter arguments reference the portion of the Constitution that support your claim.  Thanks in advance.