The First Amendment grants to all of us the freedom of speech. As is the case with all of the original amendments, the purpose of this right is to prevent the government from abusing its powers. This right to speak or write freely was deemed paramount because it is the most effective way that people can hold their government in check. By allowing citizens to air their grievances with a government then, and only then, could it be known whether said government was doing a satisfactory job or was in need of improvement. This freedom was purposely conceived with a vastness of scope so that it could exist at the personal level as well as at the cumulative level of the press.

Over the course of American history the free press has been key in educating the masses. Through a wide variety of venues (print, television, or radio) many a startling issue has been exposed, inciting anger and change. In other more positive cases press coverage has created an upwelling of patriotism or support for our government. All of this is done not only to sell papers or airtime, but also out of an obligation that many press outlets feel they have to the community at large. They pride themselves on the job they do sticking up for the "little guy", an extension of the powers and responsibilities that are granted to them in the Constitution.

Over the past two decades the press has added to the news an ever-growing supply of commentary. Newspapers have always done this, featuring since the earliest days of print news an editorial portion. This practice has now extended to all forms of media. Commentary of all sorts can be found on an almost endless variety of TV and radio talk shows. Add to that what is now available from Internet news and opinion sources and it is impossible to escape commentary.

Commentary (the provision of opinion) differs considerably from the reporting (the provision of fact) that had been the norm in what the press doled out. Reporting by its nature allows people to see an issue and then think about its ramifications on their own, which many of them tend not to do or, if they do, their thinking is done in a single-minded way that is controlled by their limited view of the world.

Commentary, on the other hand, allows the media outlet to have designated individuals offer their opinions of the news of the day. This commentary may or may not be typical to the region from which it originates or is broadcast to, thus, from pooling what is heard from multiple reporters and commentators a citizen can then develop an considerably-wider understanding of the world that is no longer restricted by their upbringing, geography or their day-to-day life.

One cannot help but look at this movement with utmost appreciation, as it is a key mark of an ever-developing society. Thanks to this abundance of commentary that exposes the masses to new ways of thinking, civics has become an increasingly fluid venture that adjusts to the times and to the needs of the people. Commentary has empowered the people.

As true as this is, the very entity that the freedom of speech is intended to limit, our government, is - at least from the Left - fearful of what has been wrought and is doing its best to suppress the accountability that is being levied upon it by the press and those who take in its offerings.

A contingent of Democrats led by WNY’s Congresswoman Louise Slaughter are constantly railing against the commentary that is offered by talk radio and television. They, in their party-driven ways, believe that most talk radio is right-leaning and feel their side is not being heard. So, rather than fighting fire with fire they have taken a path that is an affront to the freedom of speech: They are asking that the archaic and un-Constitutional Fairness Doctrine, which died in 1987, be reinstated. This Doctrine had been used by the Federal Communications Commission to limit broadcasters from offering controversial commentary in what might be an unfair and unbalanced manner.

This sort of approach is fraught with evil. It is a stifling of free thought. It limits the free enterprise system that drives media outlets. It limits the education of the people. It protects the government from criticism. It leaves one wondering just what "fair and balanced" is.

From all of that comes one haunting question: What if one day the government develops into a single-party oppressive system that considers any word against it to be at once unfair, unbalanced, and treasonous? Free speech - and therefore the people - would be stifled, just as the founding fathers had feared.