Word is that Henry Waxman, Democratic representative of California’s 30th congressional district and chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has his eye cast toward reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” that stifled political expression on the airwaves for decades — that is, until it was overthrown during the Reagan era and opened a generation of free-speech-loving rabble rousing broadcasters on the right and left. Liberals like Mr. Waxman have found the era of talk radio, and more recently cable television, most disagreeable, because some of those who have prospered are conservatives, like FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh. So they want to take a minor recent kerfuffle on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program as an opening to regulate political speech.

The incident in question occurred on September 26 and involved Mr. Limbaugh referring on air to American soldiers who oppose the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.” Mr. Limbaugh says he was referring to Jesse Macbeth, a Washington state felon sentenced to five months in prison for falsifying claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Macbeth claimed to have witnessed atrocities by American soldiers in Iraq; in reality, he had never served overseas. Mr. Limbaugh’s opponents claim he was referring to all soldiers who oppose the war, and they’ve taken to the floor of the Senate to denounce such an outrage. But the left is trying to smear Mr. Limbaugh, except that it won’t stick, because Mr. Limbaugh has a long, distinguished record of support for our GIs, whatever their political leanings.

The left is still smarting from the backlash, among conservatives and many others, that greeted MoveOn.org’s anti-war advertisement in the New York Times. So Democrats want to kick a little dust back the other way. The American Spectator’s Web site reports this week that Mr. Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Mr. Limbaugh and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, based on transcripts from their shows. “Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,” the Spectator quoted a House leadership source as saying. “We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this is all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage.” Mr. Waxman also wants to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

Formalized in 1949, but with roots dating back before the existence of the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required that broadcast stations provide equal time to opposing viewpoints on political issues. What this meant in practice was that radio and TV stations broadcast little political commentary, for fear of triggering the regulations. There was a rationale for the Fairness Doctrine when it was born; airwaves were seen as a limited spectrum, requiring a good deal of oversight by the government to ensure fair play. But that rationale, always thin, has evaporated in the era of cable and the Internet. Reagan-era deregulation, the explosion of the Web, and the advent of blogging, all have left the public discourse with no shortage of voices, left, right, and inbetween.

“These are public airwaves, and the public should be entitled to a fair presentation,” says Senator Feinstein, a Democrat of California, who has been agitating for a return of the Fairness Doctrine. But the public is already being represented through the marketplace. If conservative talk radio is more popular than its liberal counterpart — like, say, Air America — it is due to free individuals making their own decisions. No conservatives are talking about regulating the Web because of, say, DailyKos. But the Democratic base seems to be plotting to bring in government controls on the figurative street corners where conservatives have climbed the soapbox.

All of this is something that will require the closest possible vigilance on the part of those who love free speech and who love the great debate that has raged in America for years. The last attempt to eviscerate free speech via legislation — the law known as McCain-Feingold — is being rolled back by the Supreme Court. It has been and will be a long, hard slog, because the Congress has formidable powers and is institutionally hostile to the First Amendment, which begins with the immortal words “Congress shall make no law . . .” Congress has been bridling at those words ever since the Alien and Sedition Acts, and we are in an era in which it looks like it is going to make another attempt to get around the prohibitions that were laid down by the Founders.