This week, many broadcast stations owned by Sinclair plan to air a movie, “Stolen Honor,” that may annoy Senator Kerry. His campaign demands “equal time” claiming that it is required by law. Mr. Kerry’s campaign is mistaken.

Twenty years ago, under federal regulations entitled the “Fairness Doctrine,” a broadcaster was required to provide equal time for differing views on political and other issues. But during the Reagan Administration, the Fairness Doctrine rules were relaxed. Consequently, a new form of broadcasting emerged: talk radio.

The Fairness Doctrine and its associated political editorial and personal attack rules effectively silenced broadcasters as voices in political discourse. Station owners would have been rightfully afraid that they would have been forced to provide equal time every time a radio host offended a political figure, an hourly occurrence.

The Fairness Doctrine did not die quietly. During the 1990s, public interest groups and others litigated the fate of the Fairness Doctrine before the D.C. Circuit Court. With each passing year of the growing popularity of the conservative talk radio, the urgency of some liberal groups to revive the Fairness Doctrine became more acute.

The Fairness Doctrine was clearly at odds with the First Amendment. The D.C. Circuit finally put the worst forms of the Doctrine out of its misery almost exactly four years ago when the FCC failed to write new rules in a timely manner.

No doubt, the judges on the D.C. Circuit Court were surprised to read in the past week that the Kerry campaign believes that it has a legal right to equal time on Sinclair stations. If the Kerry campaign is correct, the old Fairness Doctrine never died.

Senator Kerry would then have a right to even more equal time on the hundreds of radio stations that daily distribute Rush Limbaugh and other talk show hosts who make unflattering comments about Senator Kerry. President Bush would have a right to equal time on “60 Minutes” and on several late night and comedy shows where Senator Kerry has appeared.

The Kerry campaign may also suggest a Sinclair violation of political advertising rules. These rules require equal access for political candidates to broadcast advertising. Thus, Sinclair would be in a difficult position if it accepted political advertising from President Bush but not Senator Kerry. That is not the case here.

President Bush’s campaign is not paying for “Stolen Honor.” Nor is the campaign using the movie as an advertisement in any venue. The movie and the Bush campaign appear to be unrelated.

Yet it is the Kerry campaign that demands free time from Sinclair broadcasters. Ironically, it would be an unlawful uncompensated contribution by Sinclair to give free air time to the Kerry campaign just as it would be an unlawful contribution if Sinclair had given free air time directly to Bush campaign.

Sinclair is simply preempting national network programming and inserting local programming of its choice. Sinclair presumably will profit from its broadcast operations.

For decades, public interest groups have bemoaned the reluctance of station owners to preempt the national network programming. But when Sinclair preempts the network programming, suddenly many of the same public interest groups denounce the preemption.

Nothing stops a broadcast owner from showing the latest Michael Moore film or telecasting Democratic Party speeches. Perhaps broadcasters do not do this more because the station owners do not view such programming as profitable. Or they may fear political retribution from broadcasting such programming.

The termination of the Fairness Doc trine has not meant the end of possible political retribution. The Sinclair CEO, David Smith, can expect a frosty reception from the FCC should Senator Kerry be elected president.

Despite the First Amendment, the federal government can intimidate speech in indirect ways. FCC regulators, for example, must periodically renew Sinclair’s and other broadcasters’ licenses. License renewal for Sinclair could be particularly painful under a Kerry administration. Hence, Sinclair’s exercise of free speech may yet prove extraordinarily expensive.

During confirmation hearings for the next chair of the FCC, at least one senator should ask the nominee to recite the First Amendment and explain why review of programming decisions are entirely inappropriate during a license renewal proceeding. No one else can hope to hold a future FCC accountable.

Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. He can be reached at hfr@furchtgott-roth.com.