"You cannot have an opposition movement without opposition media." -Van Jones, former Green Jobs Czar for President Obama.

---

Free speech and dictatorship don't mix.

Just think about it. If I were a Third World dictator and wanted to keep power indefinitely and still pretend to be legitimate, could I do so if the newspapers and television stations were all speaking out against me?

Heck no. Free speech is a powerful tool for democracy, as our Founding Fathers knew. That's why if I were a dictator, I might eventually take the step of shutting down the opposition newspapers and TV stations, like Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela. But that has the disadvantage of confirming everyone's worst suspicions that I am indeed a ruthless dictator.

Dictators are cunning devils, however (which is probably how they got to be dictators in the first place), so they don't have to solve every problem with violence. Sometimes subterfuge can be just as effective.

Thus, if I were a subtle dictator, instead of using my police against the newspapers, I could use my legislature, or even my executive authority. It's not necessary to silence the opposition; it's just necessary to make them irrelevant. To do that, I would have to be able to make their words irrelevant, and to do that I would need to invent a "Fairness Doctrine."

What exactly is that, you ask?

Simply put, it is a policy that devalues free speech by requiring every argument put forth in public to have a mandatory counter-argument.

Sounds good in principle, I suppose, except when you value the voice of the people as a mechanism for putting a "governor" on the government. In a free society, if 80 percent of the people abhor their government, they can speak out loudly and insistently and overthrow their government peacefully.

But in a society where "Fairness" has been imposed, that is not possible. Instead, when the 80 percent speak out against my corrupt government, I would be able to demand equal time in the newspapers and radio and TV stations to tell the people why I am actually a kindly and benevolent dictator who should be thought of as the people's savior and advocate, not their enemy.

If there were a front-page article today saying my government was corrupt, I would demand a front-page article tomorrow saying my opponents were scurrilous liars who are paid propagandists for causes contrary to my lofty goals.

It couldn't happen in America, you say?

Hogwash. It already has happened in many small ways, and there is a movement afoot to reduce the opposition media in the United States to an irrelevant asterisk.

The Van Jones quote with which this column begins is merely the road sign pointing to the ultimate goal of total control of the media that some members of the ruling elite seem to have in mind as part of the "transformation" of America they envision.

Like all roads to hell, this one comes with the standard "good intentions."

The Fairness Doctrine was enacted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, and it was the rule of the land until it was abandoned in the mid-1980s. Its purpose was to ensure that various viewpoints would have access to the airwaves, and that no one used government-issued broadcast licenses to brainwash the public with a monolithic source of information.

That probably made sense in the 1940s when broadcasting was relatively new and diversity was relatively limited. But it became apparent in the ensuing years that the "Fairness Doctrine" could also be used as a cudgel to intimidate broadcasters from airing unpopular viewpoints or even as a way to punish those of an opposite political persuasion.

Thus, shortly after the Reuther Memorandum was sent to Attorney General Robert Kennedy advising him to use the FCC to crack down on the ability of the "radical right" to spread its message of "fear," the FCC issued a public notice in 1963 that did just that. (See last week's column to read more about the Reuther Memorandum.)

The FCC's notice advised broadcasters that they had an "affirmative obligation" to "afford reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints." It singled out programs that were "presented under the label of 'Americanism,' 'anti-communism,' or 'state's rights'" and told broadcasters that whenever such a viewpoint was aired, whether in a paid announcement or an editorial or even an official speech, the station was "obligated to make a reasonable effort to present the other opposing viewpoint."

You can imagine that this could create quite a problem. First of all, if you broadcast a program that was pro-American, could you really be forced by our own government to broadcast a program that was anti-American?

And the particulars were even more disturbing. If a program involved a "personal attack upon an individual or organization, the licensee must transmit the text of the broadcast to the person or group attacked, wherever located, either prior to or at the time of the broadcast, with a specific offer of his station's facilities for an adequate response."

Could you imagine if such a policy had been in effect after the attacks of Sept. 11? Whenever Osama bin Laden was denounced as a brutal killer, al-Qaida would be scoring more air time for their message of anti-Americanism! Of course, it might have helped the United States to track down Osama since all the news organizations in the country would have been investigating his whereabouts so that they could deliver their offer of an "adequate response."

Unbelievable, but this is actually the policy that was in place in our country for more than 35 years, and which numerous politicians and theoreticians of the left want to see reinstated.

Mark Lloyd, the FCC diversity czar, is on record as saying that "the Fairness Doctrine is not enough. Put some hard structural rules in place that are going to result in fairness."

Presumably that is fairness in the "Animal Farm" sense. Your remember George Orwell's "Animal Farm," right? In that book, the animals take over the farm with the best of intentions, but things go hideously wrong. Ultimately the high-minded principles of egalitarianism and opportunity turn into this simple rule of power politics: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

It's the same thing with fairness. If you are protecting the right of your own viewpoint to be heard, you are all in favor of fairness, but when the opposition wants to speak out against you, suddenly there are good and valid reasons to shut them up.

Mr. Jones, the avowed communist, said it best with his immortal words, "You cannot have an opposition movement without opposition media."

Over the next few months and years, we may get a chance to see that theory tested. The Obama administration has already started a full-frontal assault on Fox News and various conservative commentators. If Fox and Glenn Beck should thus suddenly disappear from the cable lineup sometime in the next few months, you will at least know what's to blame - good old "Fairness."

n Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com