Freedom of expression

Most recently in my Media ethics class we have begun to discuss legal limits on free expression and whether or not it is a good idea or not. There have been several legal limitations that have been put into place to reject anything that directly warrants violence or threatens national security (Gordon, 28). According to commondreams.org, the fairness doctrine "required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest and to air contrasting views regarding those matters." It has been said that the doctrine did not violate broadcasters first amendment rights (Gordon, 28). In my opinion when it comes to freedom of speech is a great thing but sometimes I feel that it is abused.
The article on commondreams.org discusses whether of not the now defunct fairness doctrine should be brought back. The articles quotes saying, "The FCC's pro industry, anti regulatory philoshophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests." I can definitely see that because I myself look to the media for information and if the viewpoint that is portrayed is the one that went to the the highest bidder, im not sure how I could trust that.
There is a similar issue that the book talks about that discussed whether or not hate speakers should be allowed on cable access channels. According to the book it usually resulted in counter programming (Gordon, 30). It was also found usually the best way to counter this material was with positive messages and was the ethical approach as well (Gordon, 30). I think this is the ethical approach because I like to think that with one negative message their is a positive message to go along with it. I think that would put most people at ease to see both sides of something like that