Posted on 01/17/2011 3:39:39 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Left-wing attempts to restrict free speech aren't new. Even before the Tucson shooting, a recently defeated Ohio congressman asked government to punish a pro-life group because he didn't like their ads criticizing his voting record. His position is such an offense to freedom that even the liberal American Civil Liberties Union weighed in on behalf of pro-lifers.
The case arises from disputes over Obamacare. Steven L. Driehaus voted for the government takeover of health care as a member of the House of Representatives despite claiming to be pro-life. Influential pro-life groups - including the grassroots Susan B. Anthony List - warned about provisions in the law that could lead to government funding for abortions. When the SBA List announced plans to post billboards in Mr. Driehaus' district saying he "voted for taxpayer-funded abortion," he asked the Ohio Elections Commission to declare the message false and prohibit the advertisements. The commission complied.....
...Mr. Driehaus' sour grapes dovetail with post-Tucson initiatives by Rep. Robert Brady, Pennsylvania Democrat, and Rep. Jim Clyburn, South Carolina Democrat, who propose outlawing campaign images that can be "perceived" as threatening while trying to re-institute the so-called Fairness Doctrine that controls on-air commentary. Rep. Louise Slaughter, New York Democrat, said the Federal Communications Commission should issue new broadcast restrictions.
The rush to limit free speech is antithetical to the American founding. The effective way to counter an argument you don't like is to put forth a more compelling point of view. That rule applies to politicians who lost their majority and those who frittered away their own seats. Most Americans understand robust debate is less likely to cause violence than to ward it off by providing a constructive outlet for grievances. The ability to criticize and vote down someone like Mr. Driehaus is what keeps society mostly civil.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There is NO evidence Jared Loughner’s deed was motivated by extreme rhetoric. If he ranted beforehand about threatening to kill Rep. Giffords, there is no evidence of it. Taking away our free speech won’t stop any one in a homicidal frame of mind and they’re not going to be deterred from doing evil by an appeal to their reason.
When they get done with their list of words and images they want to prohibit from our political speech, will we even be able to say her last name?
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.