Today, as we prepare to celebrate our liberty, there's a desperate need for members of Congress willing to stand up to protect it.

At issue is the Fairness Doctrine, a Federal Communications Commission rule from decades ago mandating that on radio and TV programs any expression of opinion must be balanced by a view from the other side. It was said to boil down to "fairness."

But of course it's impossible to come up with an objective measure of fairness. The first effect of the rule was to squelch opinions, or render them so bland and inoffensive as to be pointless. It also quickly became a political weapon. Politicians of both parties -- including Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon -- found it a handy tool for bashing their opponents.

Then the Supreme Court began trimming back the rule; the Reagan Administration opposed it; and the FCC abolished it in 1987.

What happened then was a burst of activity we now call talk radio. The medium became a hothouse for people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. As those names suggest, conservatives dominate this segment, perhaps because the format forces discussion of issues, not sound bites or pretty pictures.

This has chafed Democrats for years, and they have tried a number of times to get the doctrine reinstated so that they could get free access to the same audiences.

Bringing back the outmoded Fairness Doctrine would be a logistical and legal nightmare for radio stations. Every airing of any talk show would bring threats of lawsuits, or at least a demand that it be matched by an opposing (usually liberal) view.

The sheer dullness of most liberal talk shows -- which has been amply demonstrated by small audiences -- would kill the whole talk format if the expense of fighting complaints and litigation didn't do the job first.

Some observers think that if the Democrats get big majorities in Congress and seat Barack Obama in the White House they'll try to revive the Fairness Doctrine to kill the Limbaugh effect. Democrat leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin have said they favor the idea.

That's why more than a year ago Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905) which would forbid the FCC from readopting the doctrine. Both Utah Republicans -- Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop -- were co-sponsors. But the measure can't seem to get out of committee. That's why Pence has introduced a discharge opinion, which would push the bill to an immediate vote.

At last count, 200 members of Congress -- including almost all the Republicans -- have signed the discharge petition. Only 18 more signatures are needed. But according to the latest reports, no Democrat has signed. That includes Matheson.

Speaking for Matheson, staffers point out that Congress has about 6,500 bills to consider in the six weeks when it will be in active session, and that this one should go by the usual process, not be accelerated by a discharge vote. Basically, as we understand Matheson, it's inevitable that some worthy bills will be left by the wayside.

Matheson "believes a normal, deliberative committee process -- where all points of view about the merits can be discussed -- should be followed for this bill," the statement said.

But this isn't a complex issue that requires deep study. It's very simple and clear: Reviving the Fairness Doctrine would be a flagrant attempt to stifle free speech for the benefit of a political party that is not now, and may never be, very popular in broadcast programming.

The original doctrine was justified on the grounds that, at the time, there were only three television networks and a few AM radio stations in any market; so it wouldn't be fair for such dominant media outlets to propagate their opinions while disallowing others. But that feeble justification is utterly obsolete in an era with cable TV stations, satellite and digital radio and the Internet. Today, there are limitless opportunities for people of all beliefs to get their views out to others. If those ideas fail there in the marketplace of ideas, the government shouldn't interfere.

Matheson should display independence and statesmanship. If he signs the discharge petition, he shows his leadership on a key issue. (Of course, he'd still be free to vote against the bill on the floor, if his judgement shows him that's the right thing to do.)

He is sometimes called a blue dog -- a conservative Democrat. He voted, commendably, against the pork-laden farm bill, and has introduced legislation to keep unwanted foreign nuclear waste out of Utah.

But already this political season we've heard politicians and voters question how truly independent blue dog Democrats are. Are they able to vote their consciences, or are they allowed to stray from party orthodoxy only on a few token issues? Some critics say that Pelosi can bring all the blue dogs to heel when the issue is really important.

Matheson should not allow himself to be collared -- not when the free market of ideas is at stake. Government control doesn't belong here.