[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17543-17544]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                RADIO FREE AMERICA AND THE SPEECH POLICE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, it is written, ``Congress will make no law 
respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof, or bridging the freedom of speech or the freedom of 
press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition 
the government for redress of grievances.'' Of course, this is the 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. And Mr. Speaker, it 
is first because, without these first principles, the rest of the 
following amendments are meaningless. These are rights that Americans 
take very seriously, particularly in regard to freedom of speech and 
freedom of the press.
  There are some in Washington, D.C., however, that feel if someone is 
saying something they don't like, they ignore this freedom of the right 
to speak and try to control speech. This is where the so-called 
Fairness Doctrine comes into play.
  In the early 1940s, the Federal Communications Commission, or the 
FCC, established the so-called Fairness Doctrine. It was instituted in 
an attempt to ensure that all broadcast station coverage of 
controversial issues be fair and balanced. This mainly applied to radio 
stations. This means allowing equal time for each side on an issue. If 
a radio station wanted to talk about the need to secure the borders, 
they would have to grant the same amount of time to individuals who 
wanted open borders.
  The Fairness Doctrine was considered by many journalists a violation 
of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of press. 
And I agree with this assertion. It even led many journalists to avoid 
reporting on controversial issues to protect themselves from having to 
report on the other side of the issue. This led to the opposite effect 
of the doctrine that the FCC had intended. It actually stifled free 
speech.
  So, by 1987, the FCC revoked the Fairness Doctrine, realizing the 
gross error in their ways in total disregard for the freedom of speech. 
There have been several attempts by speech-control advocates to reenact 
the Fairness Doctrine, and all of these attempts have continued to 
fail. But this decision still does not sit well with many in 
Washington, D.C., who feel that

[[Page 17544]]

broadcast talk radio is one-sided. What it really means is that talk 
radio largely boasts conservative views and not liberal viewpoints. 
Liberal radio doesn't go over well with Americans, and these stations 
generally fail financially and with the American listeners. So the 
critics of conservative radio have started a movement to eliminate 
conservative talk radio unless equal time is allowed for liberal 
viewpoints. Basically, they want a reinstatement of the unfair Fairness 
Doctrine. But what the critics may really be irate about deals more 
with illegal immigration than it does with talk radio, because that is 
the current controversial issue on talk radio stations.
  Since their voices are so rarely heard in Congress, the American 
public has come to express their opinions by talk radio, especially on 
this issue of illegal immigration. The backroom, closed-door meetings 
the Senate has had to reach a deal on amnesty that the American public 
certainly doesn't want has encouraged talk radio shows to inform the 
public of this absurd nonsense of amnesty.
  Talk radio has been one of the only vehicles that has kept the public 
informed about the ``give America away'' amnesty program and the 
political pandering and preference policies for illegals that the 
Senate bill is advocating.
  So because the amnesty crowd doesn't like what they hear on the 
radio, they want the Federal Government to control this speech by 
forcing radio stations to give them free air time. If the liberals 
don't like talk radio, it is patently unfair to force radio stations to 
pay for and give away air time to them. You see, liberals can't make 
their case on their own radio station because no one listens to them.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution protects free speech, not equal 
speech. Congress is to make no law abridging the freedom of speech 
whether we like the speech or not.
  It's simple, Mr. Speaker, speech is to be free, not fair. Fair is too 
subjective a word. Our grandfathers guaranteed us free speech, not fair 
speech, and there is a big difference.
  Congress is to stay out of the controlling of speech business because 
it says so in the U.S. Constitution. Our ancestors wrote the First 
Amendment mainly to protect two types of speech, political speech and 
religious speech. Those are the most controversial of all types of 
speech and the most important types of speech. That's why they are 
protected in our Constitution.
  By trying to regulate what is said on the airways, the Federal 
Government and the speech police are speaking out of line.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________