Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 01/21/2007 12:44:27 PM PST by Graybeard58
Democrats pawn themselves off as vigorous defenders of free speech. This month's arrest of a freelance reporter has them crying, "Police state!" and demanding hearings and investigations. They harp on the erosion of free speech they say accompanies the evolution of the newspaper industry toward corporate ownership.
Yet a handful of RINOs notwithstanding, Democrats are the chief proponents of free-speech-limiting, campaign-finance reform. Legislative Democrats want to impose a Soviet-style speech code on candidates who accept public campaign money, as well as limit political telemarketing to make sure the voting public never hears recorded calls critical of them. Last year, Democrats championed the state's so-called shield law that gives qualified protection for journalists who use the crutch of anonymous sources, but that amounts to government regulation of the news media.
To that end, Democrats in Congress are trying to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, the ironically named Federal Communications Commission rule that was scrapped in 1987. Among their cheerleaders is Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR), the ironically named group that defends how the far left-wing agenda is presented and treated by journalists. Bringing back the doctrine, said FAIR spokesman Steve Rendall in parroting congressional Democrats, would tell broadcasters they "have a responsibility to present a range of views on critical issues."
Rhetoric, however, does not alter the reality that Democrats want to pull the plug on talk radio, a venue they have been unable to crack but desperately want to control. The left's latest foray into that realm, Air America, has been an unmitigated flop in the marketplace of ideas. With the Fairness Doctrine, Air America would be resurgent and the Democrats would wield the hammer of government to restrain their critics and muzzle broadcasters, much to their financial detriment based on the Air America experiment.
But the doctrine also would lead to a return to the days when broadcasters shied away from politics rather than risk government sanction. So the doctrine wouldn't bring fairness or a greater exchange of opinions, but censorship benefiting the Democrats.
The best way to evaluate this idea is to ask: Who will be the judge of fairness? The answer is the federal government, which is forbidden by the Bill of Rights.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
I was sure this was going to be about McCain, given the headline.
Or maybe these tactics are still viable; but silencing the opposition paves an easier road to the big Win.
Wondering why McCain-Feingold has not been duly challenged across the Country - in every Court House. . .en masse and with ferver.
But then, McCain/Feingold knew the 'tea leaves'; re the rising American populace; and no doubt felt pretty damn safe doing this.
Are we mad enough yet to take our Freedoms back?
The death of the "fairness" doctrine gave conservatives a voice. Take note, who amongst the Republicans want to see that voice silenced again.
Liberals (Democrats) think free speech is THEIR right to say what they want to say -- and THEIR right to suppress everybody else's right to say what they want to say.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Watch the timeline of these activities closely, paying attention to the 2008 election, and the evidence will lead directly to 1 candidate, and 1 alone, whom we all know. Three guesses who she is and the 1st 2 don't count.
bttt
"Democrats are the chief opponents of free speech."
Duh! Are we just learning this? The democrats who have come to power in the last election do not believe in free speech when it runs contrary to their beliefs and programs. Long ago in the 60's, talk radio was dominated by left wing liberal democrats, Lee Leonard comes to mind, and, at the time, there didn't seem to be any desire for "fairness." Now that the landscape has changed and conservative talk radio dominates the air waves, liberal democrats are in an uproar and demanding "fairness." LOL The fact that liberal left wing democrats have been notoriously unsuccessful in their radio ventures has convinced them that force must now be used. Thus, we are hearing more and more about the 'fairness doctrine.' Make no mistake about it -- if their 'fairness doctrine' is allowed to surface and to prevail, free speech on the air waves is over.
"...Long ago in the 60's, talk radio was dominated by left wing liberal democrats, Lee Leonard comes to mind, and, at the time, there didn't seem to be any desire for "fairness." ..."
???? I remember Joe Pine (Pyne) on the radio late at night when I was looking for Hendrix and Janis Joplin. I also have a vague memory of someone at WNBC (????) in the early 1970s whom I actually called in support of some antiwar position (callow youth alert) and he just slammed me and moved on.
The point isn't the right or the left, though. The Fairness Doctrine helped diminish talk radio and opinion in general because radio stations didn't want to get the Fairness Doctrine invoked. No opinion or politics - no Fairness Doctrine. It was in the self-interest of radio station owners to restrict political speech so they didn't have to worry about filling about their valuable airtime with multiple viewpoints and the possibility of a complaint filed against the station.
In that manner, what the Democrats seek by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is even more sinister than just coming up with a revived Air America. They seek to silence political speech. However...
If there is a "Fairness Doctrine," I could easily see the blossoming of the Internet broadcast era, complete with downloadable MP3s and the same sponsorship that conservative talk radio has today. Yeah, AM radio would die, and you wouldn't be able to hear Rush or Savage without a computer, but those voices would just find a new medium, and the arguments in favor of a Fairness Doctrine (limited amount of broadcast spectrum) don't apply to the Internet. I can see Rush now selling himself through your cell phone. He's a canny entrepreneur. It's going to take more to silencing us than returning to mid-20th century regulations.
Who?
Does anyone know if the previous Fairness Doctrine ever got challenged in court?
Democrats do want to control everything people say...then what people think...look out.
Just look at what happens where Libs are in charge: colleges, unions, MSM newsmedia, Hollywood. All of them are politically-correct places where people can have only one correct opinion. Once they have the power, the Left censors anyone who diagrees with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.