After the tragic shootings that occurred in Tucson last month, which left six dead and others wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, there was a lot of talk as to who was to blame for this.
While no one could deny that the primary fault lied with the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, there was a lot of conversation about what led him to commit such a heinous act.
Many blamed it on the harsh political rhetoric that was used during the 2010 elections, with Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map (using targets to illustrate Democratic districts she was hoping to reclaim) as the primary example.
The consensus was that even if Loughner wasn't inspired by Palin's map, or any other harsh political rhetoric, it was still an example of why more civilized discourse was needed.
As a result, there has recently been talk of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished by the FCC in 1987. The intention behind the Fairness Doctrine was to make sure that when discussing controversial issues on television or radio, no viewpoint was excluded, and, generally, to create an equal representation of liberal and conservative views.
The movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine has been primarily perpetrated by Democrats, and many Republicans have argued that it would be an unnecessary restriction of free speech, and that it is purely a reactionary move.
The Spectrum also believes this. While the rhetoric in America is often too harsh, and an increase in civil discourse would certainly be a good thing, this would be the wrong way to go about it.
In essence, it would be censorship. It would be a case of the government saying what can and can't be said on the airwaves. While there are some things that shouldn't be said, it is not up to the government to determine what those things are.
Quite simply, having the government regulate what could be discussed on the radio would be giving it too much power. It would have the ability to declare anything indecent, regardless of whether it actually was.
While using this law to prevent harsh political rhetoric seems like a good idea in theory, in practice it could lead to a 1984-esque political landscape where the government can silence any voice.
In addition, attempting to artificially construct a political landscape divided perfectly between liberal and conservative views would simply be dishonest.
Shows with explicitly liberal or conservative viewpoints thrive because people want to hear those viewpoints.
Putting a few extra liberals on Fox News wouldn't change many people's minds, or make things more "fair." If anything, it would be unfair to force networks to stray from the kind of rhetoric that got them an audience in the first place.
While it is understandable that there is desire to create a world of more civilized discourse, this is simply the wrong way of doing it. Attempting to restrict political speech in this manner would be going too far. It would go against the very ideals the United States was founded on.
