This is for poster, "Fred Hurlburt." There is a reason the Fairness Doctrine was repealed so many years ago. And even then, it was all but useless because of previous rulings by the Supreme Court. I urge you to review the history of the Doctrine and what it was used for then, and what it would be used for now, before you jump on the anti-Bush bandwagon. The issue here is not whether you support Rush Limbaugh, or James Dobson, or President Bush, or any such dogma or pool of ideals. The issue is what would be at stake if something like this were to ever be reinacted. The Fairness Doctrine only assures fairness by equally stymying both sides of debate. As an analogy, picture if the film industry had a "Fairness Doctrine" to ensure each movie produced had an equal share of success. Movies that topped the box office like Titanic, would be forced into limited screenings so that lesser quality movies such as "Run, Fat Boy Run" or "Drillbit Taylor" would fare better. In fact, the latter two movies would then be placed in every movie theatre in the country, and Titanic would be released in maybe 1,000 theatres. And there is your "balance." The Fairness Doctrine only achieves equality by limiting speech. As such, if it doesn''t violate the First Amendment, it sure comes very close.

The liberal media has controlled TV and newspapers for decades now and radio is the last bastion of conservative talk. The liberals are afraid that if they have no control over the radio, too, (where liberal talk shows have pretty much died head-to-head with conservative shows) then they can have the monopoly over the media in every venue. Why are the liberals so afraid of conservative talk on issues that they have to silence them at every corner? Why is freedom of speech in our First Amendment so foregin to the liberal mindset? If they silence the common people in every medium, then there is no venue left for conservative talk on any issues. Free speech is dead and tyranny begins. The re-indoctrination of the so called "Fairness Doctrine" would lead us down one slippery slope that we finally got out of 20 years ago.

"[T]here's an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways.... Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides."

So how, Mr. Bush, does requiring equal time stifle your right to express your views? The truth is the Fairness Doctrine provided balance of opinions for those who did not have regular access to mass media. It was also rarely used because it had to be requested by the one wanting equal time.

At least the "liberal media" isn't afraid to debate issues. Why are conservatives afraid to?

Agh, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that is actually the exact oppositive of fairness. Before Reagan scrapped the "Fairness Doctrine", the only news or talk shows we could listen to were biased liberal drivel. Once the conservative talk shows arose in the early 1990s, the tables were turned on the liberal crowd and they exposed a lot of the dark secrets that were trying to be advanced.

Case in point with the amnesity bill that Congress and the President tried to shove down America's throat last summer. If it hadn't been for conservative talk radio, we would now have 20 to 30 million residents in our country who illegally crossed our borders. We still need to kick them out and build a stronger border defense, but at least the American people had a chance to organize and defeat the ugly amnesty bill -- which wouldn't have happened with the "Fairness" Doctrine in place.

The Un"Fairness" Doctrince needs to stay a long way away if we want to truly remain faithful to the First Amendment free speech rights. If you start taking away those free speech rights and let one side (or even the other -- left or right) dictate policy, then you no longer have a free country. But as long as the liberals feel so threatened by conservative talk radio, then the attack will continue to go on.

Only President Bush could call a doctorine that is for free speech anti-free speech.

The fact is that people like Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Dobson and the other conservative talkers are the one who are afraid their arguments won't hold up in the marketplace of ideas. That's why they oppose the Fairness Doctorine.