Is the Fairness Doctrine bad for the US?

first answer: The Fairness Doctrine has pros and cons. Many people say it is a violation of the first amendment, but other people say that it keeps the citizens informed about both sides of an issue. Many say that it restricts broadcasters from giving their own side, others say that is an excuse. Democrats are the main supporters of the fairness doctrine because about 90% of talk radio is conservative. They don't want people listening to the radio and only hearing one side of a controversial issue, but the politicians in support of the doctrine will not go speak on a conservative radio show. The FCC required broadcasters to follow this doctrine to make sure that the citizens hear an honest, balanced, and fair view of the issues of public importance. These issues were usually very controversial and impossible for one to fully give a balanced view unless someone was there to debate. This is a very debatable issue itself and if the Fairness Doctrine was put into effect, radio shows would not be allowed to give their views on air because it restricts the broadcasters from saying what they believe or even know, unless someone is present to present an "equal" and "fair" balance.

second answer: The above is correct. The Fairness Doctrine is designed to muzzle the voices of those that oppose the Democratic Party. It is censorship disguised as "fairness". It would be another step towards the loss of our freedoms. These radio shows that the Democrat Party oppose do act as a counter-point to the one-sided (pro-Democrat Party) information that comes from the supposed "news" programs of the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS & CNN). People should be allowed to choose which voices they want to listen to, and people should be allowed to speak their minds freely about politics without fear from government threats or actions of reprisal. Who would decide what specific viewpoint would be used as the "other" view? What happens if Personality A & Personality B disagree on 80% of the issues, but agree on the other 20%? What if Personality A says that Rape & Murder is wrong, that high taxes are wrong, and the government should not lie; does this mean that the broadcaster has to find Personality B that says Rape & Murder is OK, high taxes are great, and that the government should lie to the people? Or does the broadcaster just have to choose someone that disagrees with two of the three things? What if the "Fairness Doctrine" was applied to this website? If one person answered the question correctly, then would Answers.com have to find someone to answer the question incorrectly? Can you see where this leads to? It will end badly for the truth & freedom.