Fairness Doctrine: A Constitutional Quandary

The "Fairness Doctrine": Fair?
The United States of America embraces democracy that fosters the rights of the citizenry to unlimited access to information and the ability to exercise free speech. These values, upon which this country is built, were under test when the Federal Communications Commission established the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. As it turned out later, the provisions of this doctrine abridged the First Amendment rights and necessitated its repelling by FCC in 1987. So, why reinstate it again? This is a faulty proposition based on absurd premises for a doctrine that failed even the constitutional tests.
In 1969, the Supreme Court found in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC that the fairness doctrine did not undermine the First Amendment rights. However, the court cautioned that if the doctrine's provisions began stifling free speech, it would then be unconstitutional. In a later case of 1974 - Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo - the

One such argument or premise upon which the doctrine would be required is that the broadcast spectrum of radio frequencies is a scarce resource and as such, is subject to regulation by the federal government and that this regulation is effected through the Fairness Doctrine. In contrast, what made the doctrine necessary in 1949 does not apply today. As one can read in between the first premise, the argument is that the public has limited access to information. However, with cable television and the immense number of radio and television stations available today, access to information is not a problem. It is readily available in variety, quantity, quality and at the press of a button anywhere, anytime (National Association of Broadcasters). In other words, the scarcity of broadcast spectrum does not limit access to information to the public today, as may have been the case in