When Fair Isn't Fair: A Free Speech Debate

February 1, 2026 - Vol. 20, No. 6 - With all that's going on these days, it is possible that you may have missed a statement by the head of the Federal Communications Commission. Chair Brendan Carr, a Donald Trump sycophant, called for stronger enforcement of a broadcast rule requiring television and radio broadcasters to offer equal time to all legally qualified opposing candidates. This may sound fair to you. But it is a naked attempt to curb free speech and protect the Trump administration from much-deserved criticism.

An example of what Carr proposes would be if a Democrat appears on a late-night talk show. He would require that program to give equal time to a Republican. He is proposing a dramatically expanded interpretation of Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934. Under Section 315, better known as the equal time provision, whenever a legally qualified candidate for a public office appears in a radio or television broadcast at no cost, all other candidates for that office must be offered to same opportunity at no cost. The exception to this rule is if the candidate appearance is in conjunction with news reporting and programming. The key words here are legally qualified candidate - meaning someone who has actually filed for elective office and is eligible for that office. For example, California Governor Gavin Newsom is a likely candidate for President in 2028. He is conducting fund raising and making personal appearances in key electoral states. He's also appearing on shows such as The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. However, Colbert is not required to provide equal time to others because Newsom has not formally declared his candidacy and has not filed the necessary paperwork with election officials. Keep in mind that the next presidential election is two and one-half years away.

Carr would have you believe that the above example would fall under an FCC regulation known as the personal attack rule. It requires stations to provide free air time to persons subject to character attack. The rule doesn't necessarily require equal time, per se. But it does require stations to provide the people whose character has been attacked a reasonable opportunity to respond. Using the Newsom example, the Governor may be critical of President Trump's policies, but that doesn't qualify as a personal attack. It is considered political speech, something the U.S. Supreme Court has historically protected. And why not? A democracy requires vigorous public debate if it to operate at its full potential.

What the FCC Chair is proposing is an expanded interpretation of the equal time provision and the personal attack rule. Stations will have to provide equal time if the broadcast was "motivated by partisan purposes." That is a highly subjective standard. Using our Newsom example, Carr would argue that Trump - or more likely a Trump administration spokesperson - should have an equally opportunity to respond. But is a Late Show appearance a partisan event or an entertainment program? And would the threat of constantly having to give equal time every time someone criticises the administration serve to stifle free speech and public debate? I argue that is exactly what Donald Trump wants. His is a failed and incompetent presidency. The only way he can save it from certain electoral debate to limit free speech.

Here's the irony of the situation. What Carr is proposing is, in essence, the resurrection of what was once known as The Fairness Doctrine, a requirement stations provide all sides on any controversial issue. The doctrine had the effect of inhibiting stations from covering controversial issues lest they been inundated with equal time requests. Conservatives, in particular, hated the rule because they felt they were unable to get their views heard. The Reagan administration abolished the rule in 1987, thus opening the door to an explosion of conservative talk radio and the rise of Rush Limbaugh, a most effective and articulate conservative propagandist. Republicans credit him with the growth of a new, more conservative Republican Party in the 1990s. Now, with voices of opposition to Trump and his MAGA minions reaching a crescendo, Carr wants to roll back the 1980s.

It is important to remember that the equal time provision and the personal attack rule apply only to broadcast stations and networks. Because the FCC's mandate is to regulate the nation's airwaves, it does not have jurisdiction over cable outlets such as Fox News and MS-Now. However, as Trump continues to tighten his authoritarian rule, I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to squelch these media voices, as well.

These are dangerous times. The President, who is of both questionable mind and body, is using the power of his office to act vindictively against his enemies real and imagined. It has never been more important for the majority of disaffected citizens of the United States who do not support the President to pay close attention to what is happening and that they voice their dissatisfaction at the polls. Otherwise, the Man-Child Who Would Be King may take away some of your most basic freedoms - and there would be nothing you could do about it. That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.