[BC] Fairness doctrine by another name? aka censorship?

[tpt at literock93r.com]

See:

http://www.sanjuanislander.com/county/prosecutor/radio.shtml

regarding an attempt by an electoral commission in Washington state to  
muzzle  talk show hosts involved in a campaign to pass a ballot issue  
to prevent new gas taxes.

The campaign was started by two talk-show hosts on KVI. A local  
prosecuting attorney filed an action against the committee promoting  
the the anti-gas tax campaign for failing to disclose the source of  
its funding. The electoral commission not only ordered the campaign  
committee to disclose the source of cash contributions but also  
ordered KVI's owner, Fisher Broadcasting, to be listed as an "in-kind"  
contributor because they allowed the two talkers to hold forth on this  
issue. This order was appealed, and the Washington Supreme Court  
rejected the claim that the broadcaster could be charged with  
"in-kind" contributions --unless the campaign committee controlled the  
radio station.

Squaring the circle here--do you not see the pernicious danger of a  
"fairness" doctrine.  Or the "diversity act of 2009" as it will  
probably be called.
Remember that we are not now required to provide equal time for  
"issue" contests before the court. If a station is required to present  
a "diversity" of viewpoints, any views expressed in opposition to  
prevailing political winds will be attacked not only under the Federal  
level but also at the state level.

On a related note: Read the article in today's Wall Street Journal:
  "Geert Wilders Is a Test for Western Civilization"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123483168531395775.html

Recall that Oriana Fallaci, WW II partisan, and award winning  
journalist, faced criminal charges before she died in Italy for "hate"  
speech against Islamic radicals (particularly her book after 9/11  
called the The Rage and The Pride).
Or other uses of "hate speech" laws to censor.