What differing views? They just air the same old talking points from the party of "No" 24/7.
The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back
In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters� First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.� In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: �The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public�s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters� rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.�
Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.