Obama and Pelosi want to Regulate Speech and Thought

George C. Landrith

Senator Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a host of other Democrats are pushing hard for government regulation of political speech and thought. They call their speech and thought regulatory scheme “The Fairness Doctrine” because truth-in-labeling laws do not apply to congressional legislation. If the Obama-Pelosi speech regulatory scheme were honestly named, it would be “The Political Speech Censorship and Thought Control Act.”

Make no mistake, “The Fairness Doctrine” is an attack on American values and the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. But for unprincipled politicians who hope to silence their adversaries and increase their own political power, it is a convenient tool to control the information that the public receives.

Obama and Pelosi say that they want “fairness” and “both sides” to be presented. So they propose giving government the power to regulate and control what information is presented. In communist and other totalitarian regimes, the government’s propaganda and censuring arms were given laudable but highly misleading names. In Nazi Germany, Hitler named Paul Joseph Goebbels his Minister of Public Enlightenment.

Goebbels famously proclaimed, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” That is what “The Fairness Doctrine” is really about – allowing dishonest politicians to control what information the public receives so they can control the debate. The truth is neither Obama nor Pelosi care about “fairness” or hearing both sides. They simply want to control political speech.

Here is the proof. The media taken as a whole leans strongly Left – network news, newspapers, entertainment television, movies, the recording industry, etc. The only segment of the media that is arguably more centrist or perhaps right leaning is talk radio. And that is what Obama and Pelosi want to regulate – talk radio. So their claims of wanting “fairness” are proven false by the fact that they want to silence the one part of the media that doesn’t overtly and obviously favor them.

They argue that the airwaves are scarce and so government must regulate them to insure they are fairly used. But, this argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. According to a study by the Culture and Media Institute, only 7% of Americans consider radio to be their main source for news and information. In contrast, 55% of Americans rely primarily on television news and 57% of American adults read a newspaper every day. Finally, more than 70% of Americans use the Internet and have access to news from literally all over the world and from every conceivable viewpoint. Why focus on regulating the least used media source? Because it is the one media source that doesn’t reflexively follow the leftist line.

Laughably, they argue that the media is censoring the liberal side of the debate. Seriously! That is what they say. It is laughable, but they say it anyhow. On the radio, there is Air America which was created for the express purpose of spreading liberal ideas, broadcasting on 55 stations nationwide. PBS is heavily funded by tax dollars and heard on more than 800 stations nationwide. Additionally, more than 850 talk radio stations are devoted to mostly liberal programming. So there is no storage of liberalism on the radio airwaves. In truth, Obama and Pelosi really object to the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin are popular so they want to silence them.

Finally, they argue that government regulation of speech is needed to promote the public interest. Interestingly, that is precisely what all totalitarians argue when they establish their Ministry of “Information” or “Public Enlightenment.” Whether it was Hitler’s Germany or the Soviet Union or the Communist Chinese, they all stamped out voices who present ideas “dangerous” to the regime. But let’s set that unpleasant fact of history aside for the moment. Many years ago, when we had the Fairness Doctrine in place, radio simply avoided seriously discussing real issues so they didn’t have to present both sides. How does that promote the public interest? Having an uninformed public may be in politicians interest, but it is not in the public’s interest.

I am tired of the liberal media bias. But unlike Obama and Pelosi and so many other Democrats in Washington, I have never wanted to solve it by asking government to silence those with whom I disagree. That is because I am an American with true American values as outlined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Those who want to use the power of government to regulate and silence those with whom they disagree are quite simply anti-American and have rejected the very essence of what it means to be an American.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org