FAIRNESS DOCTRINE STILL INFRINGES FREE SPEECH

Once again a group of politicians is leading the charge to muzzle the public airwaves by re-enacting the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which requires that broadcasters and local cable channels cover issues of "public importance."

If the politicians are successful, broadcasters and cable channels would be required to cover those issues of "public importance" (Who knows what they might be?) in a manner that the government deems fair and reasonable. If they fail to do so, the Federal Communications Commission could yank their broadcast licenses.

The tool the politicians hope to use is the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993, a bill being sponsored in the House by Democrats John Dingell of Michigan and Edward Markey of Massachusetts and in the Senate by Democrat Ernest Hollings of South Carolina. If passed, the bill turns the Fairness Doctrine into law.

That doctrine, enacted by the FCC in 1949, required those holding radio and television broadcasting licenses "to provide coverage of vitally important controversial issues of interest to the community" and "a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints."

Despite its obvious infringement upon the First Amendment right to free speech, the doctrine remained the law of the land for almost 40 years. It wasn't until the 1980s that President Reagan's FCC decided its critics were correct -- that it violated the First Amendment -- and refused to defend the law in court challenges. Subsequently, the FCC suspended it.

Congress tried several times over the past six years to re-enact the doctrine by statute. Each time, the bills gained majorities in both houses, but were vetoed by Presidents Reagan and Bush. But now, with Democrat Bill Clinton in the White House, the latest version could become law.

Some talk-radio hosts, after all, are thorns in the sides of politicians, and commentators like Cape Girardeau's own Rush Limbaugh -- a piercing thorn in the side of President Clinton -- that the Fairness in Broadcasting Act would target. Promulgating his conservative philosophies, Limbaugh has taken a no-holds-barred approach to criticizing Clinton and most of his programs. Whether you agree with him or not, it is Limbaugh's First Amendment right to do so.

Broadcast television is a mass-audience medium that tends to avoid controversies and personalities that would offend viewers. On the other hand, radio seeks niche markets, so it can use personalities who may not be to everyone's liking.

If the latest version of the law is enacted, many television stations that now carry Limbaugh could find it safer simply to drop his program rather than come up with some way of satisfying the government's wishes.

Radio stations could try to carry a liberal talk-show host too, but even that may not keep them out of trouble. If Limbaugh's audience is much larger than that of the liberal, challengers may say the test of reasonable opportunity isn't met.

Another alternative might be to invite guests with different viewpoints to the show. But under the Fairness Doctrine that might not work either because the courts have held that this presents a "hostile" atmosphere that does not meet the reasonable opportunity test.

If neither of those efforts satisfies the government, radio stations as well may find it easiest to drop Limbaugh and other controversial personalities.

The ill-conceived Fairness Doctrine is an infringement on freedom of speech, and this new version would be no different. The doctrine of fairness it purports to nurture is grossly unfair.