Free speech is crucial to freedom and democracy. Sorry to state the obvious, but there are a number of liberal Democrats who are committed to controlling the flow of information in this country, and, specifically, limiting the flow from sources they don’t like. Apparently, to them, "free" speech is a great concept, so long as they approve of the speech in question. If they don’t, rather than just facing that opposing view head-on, in a fair manner, they attempt to suppress it, quash it, and stomp it out of existence.

Now that the White House and both houses of Congress are in the hands of liberal Democrats, they will push even harder to make this suppression of free speech a reality. As with so many other issues, whether they get their way is largely up to you–if we sit on our hands and do nothing, then the Left may get its way, with an Orwellian control of the information that reaches us through the airwaves [see also our earlier column, "2008 is 1984" ].

For example, that stalwart of "fairness," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), has compared conservative talk radio to pornography. Our reference to his sense of "fairness" is discussed more at length in our earlier column, What It Was, Was Slander. He and his colleagues didn’t seem too bothered by the lack of fairness they showed U. S. District Judge Charles Pickering when he was nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bush. But we won’t be surprised if Sen. Schumer and colleagues are in the forefront of the effort to bring back the [un]Fairness Doctrine and/or make other efforts to curtail free speech.

For any who haven’t heard, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was done away with during the Reagan Administration. That doctrine had basically required radio stations to give equal time to opposing views–in today’s world, that would mean if a radio station ran four hours of conservative talk shows, then it would have to run four hours of liberal talk shows. In effect, that could greatly reduce the quantity of conservative talk shows on the air, as well as diminish the station’s ad revenue, since advertisers might be less inclined to buy time on the much less-listened to liberal shows.

There is also a "back door" effort by which liberal Democrats may try to accomplish the same thing, while claiming that they aren’t "bringing back" the [un]Fairness Doctrine. That effort is called "localism," an FCC rule that requires radio and TV stations to cover the interests of the local community. Complying with that rule is a condition for keeping the station’s license. If the FCC under President Obama is so inclined, it may "define" localism to essentially encompass the same thing as the [un]Fairness Doctrine, which would discourage stations from carrying nationwide syndicated [conservative] programming, due to the requirement to properly serve the "local" interests. That "end run" is discussed further on newsmax.com and KeepRushontheAir.com.

To us, without question, either of the above would be an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech, and a chilling example of "Big Brother" government in action. The federal government has no business being in the business of dictating the programming of a radio station–call it what you want to, put whatever deceptive label on it you like, it is censorship, and an outright attack on free speech–led by liberals who are supposedly all about "guarding" our liberties and freedoms.

So, the first "attack" will be against conservative talk radio–limited to radio. But, if we are going to be consistent–and "fair"– then why have the "Fairness Doctrine" and the concept of "localism" restricted to just radio and local TV?

How about nationwide television? Since the national networks, save Fox News, are all "in the tank" for the Left, then how about some "fairness" there, huh? Just hand over ABC and CBS to the Republican Party, and let it control what gets broadcast on those networks, since they and the others, except Fox, are basically the PR mouthpiece for liberal Democrats. Sorry, Charlie (Gibson). And, you, too, Katie. Move it on over, the conservatives are taking over your anchor chairs. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Newspapers? Gee, most of them lean left, too. A whole bunch of them, in fact. That means just loads of them will now relinquish control to the GOP, and conservative columnists will finally get the opportunity to be read in previously-unreachable quantities. No more Obama "puff pieces" in those papers. Magazines? Same deal.

We’re not sure what will happen to all of those out-of-work liberal "journalists," but, hey, "fairness" can have a heavy price, right? At least a few of them may be able to find jobs in liberal radio, since that market will have to increase as part of this "fairness" plan.

The internet? Hey, we can’t leave out the fastest-growing media communications method of all, can we? But, how do we do that? Make all the conservative websites list a bunch of liberal sites that the reader can go to for an "opposing view"? And make the liberals do vice versa? Who decides which are which? Which ones make the "lists"? Who decides that? Who plays "hall monitor" for all of that?

Gosh, we guess that means we’ll have to have–you guessed it, more federal regulation and a brand-spanking new federal agency to "oversee" all this, since the FCC won’t be big enough to handle this new responsibility. How many billions a year will that cost? Doesn’t matter, not when we are talking about preserving "fairness." Besides, we are confident that our liberal friends in Congress will come up with a myriad of new taxing proposals to finance this huge new undertaking.

Then, of course, there will be the "bail-out." What bail-out, you say? C’mon, think it through. Since all those radio stations will have to drop much of their conservative talk lineup, to even it up with liberal talk shows, their ratings will take an absolute nosedive, which means their ad revenues will go flat. That’s ok, since Uncle Sam is bailing out so many others, we can just add WKRP in Cincy to the list, along with numerous other radio stations all across the country. Then, our government will own radio stations, along with the insurance companies, brokerage firms, banks and other entities it now owns.

Imagine that conservatives controlled the White House, both houses of Congress, and most of the "mainstream" media, but liberals predominated on talk radio. Those conservatives then decide it would be a good thing to institute the "Fairness Doctrine" or via "localism" require all those radio stations to give equal time to conservative sources.

Liberals would be screaming bloody murder, shouting protests from the rooftops, and rightfully so. "Censorship!" "An attack on free speech!" "Ruthlessly oppressive Big Brother government!" Yes, we would really be hearing it–so long as the liberals had media outlets that would actually cover their protests, instead of ignoring them, or bashing them for speaking up.

So, why is it any different now? Its "OK" to suppress "conservative" free speech, but not "liberal" free speech? The U. S. Government is supposed to be allowed to dictate to privately-owned radio stations what they can and cannot broadcast–on partisan, political lines? Yet, National Public Radio, largely funded by our tax dollars, is free to roam as far to the left as they like, totally unfettered?

We have a feeling this will be one of a number of issues that "blue dog" Democrats (i.e., moderates and conservatives) will need to "break rank" with the powers that be in their party, in order to see that common sense–and what is best for our country–actually prevails. If the non-liberal Democrats, independents, Republicans and other conservatives stand together on this issue, then Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and company will have to back off. Free speech will then reign, instead of government-dictated censorship.

That coalition of common sense will have to be active on other issues as well, if things such as "drill, baby, drill" are to become reality.

Otherwise, let’s face it. There are a bunch of people out there that would rather have their impressionable children mindlessly singing "songs of praise" to Obama than listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck. They actually think that listening to Glenn, Sean and Rush is harmful, while chanting those mantras is beneficial. If we don’t wake up and stay focused, they may get their way.

"Free speech" isn’t free if one side of an issue is successful in suppressing the views of the other side–that is called oppression, censorship, tyranny, and other such words, but "free" is not among them.

Neither is "fair."