The Media's Shrinking Free-Speech Zone

Tech Central Station ^ | 10/23/04 | Ryan Sager

[bubman]

Dan Rather, call your office.

If the Democratic National Committee gets its way, it may not be long before the anchor of "CBS Evening News" or his bosses could be hauled before the feds and fined for making illegal "contributions" to the Kerry campaign.

Sounds unlikely? It's not -- as even Democratic lawyers are acknowledging.

Newspapers and TV stations have long been sheltered from campaign-finance laws and allowed to roam free in a little free-speech zone called the "media exemption."...

However, the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law placed severe restrictions on average citizens, corporations, labor unions and non-profit groups, setting forth specific guidelines for exactly how and when they can make their views heard.

And since virtually all media outfits are owned by corporations, their rights under the First Amendment are not nearly as secure as many in the media seem to believe.

[lilylangtree]

Can hardly wait since it appears that the CBS execs and especially Dan Blather will get another free pass. I get so frustrated when all the demoncRATS get free passes but if a pub steps out of line, all HELL breaks loose in condemnations by mainstream media, slutty demoncRATS and communist organizations like moveon.org.

[Jim Robinson]

Bring back the First Admendment! Repeal CFR! Abolish the FEC!

[Jim Robinson]

Admendment? Freudian slip?

[bubman]

Is the Sinclair decision to broadcast a scathing documentary on JFK (which resulted in the DNC filing a grievance to the FEC) a "pre-emtive" strike against the MSM? Can the GOP do the same to the Alphabet media? Are we entering dangerous unchartered territory for free speech?

Your feedbacks would be appreciated

[EGPWS]

And since virtually all media outfits are owned by corporations, their rights under the First Amendment are not nearly as secure as many in the media seem to believe.

The trek to free sovereignty confusing has been reached.

[orangelobster]

When a group of millionaire lawyers all put their heads together to devise guidelines on free speech I say that it is already a bad idea. Funny how the dems. have become a party of two americas - the high level dem. lawyers and the other 95% of dems. who take orders and do as they're told. The democrat party is no longer viable.

[CalRepublican]

Start with these premises: (1) The left knows that free speech will be their undoing; (2) The left knows that free speech, via the internet, is taking off.

So, the left decides to take away an effective way to make your voice hear--money. They know that the right always wins the money war. While they protest, the right gives money.

The left takes this down by arguing that money isn't really speech. It's utter nonsense, but they're helped out by a lunatic RHINO Senator from Arizona who has decided that he has heard too many bad things about himself from sources outside the mainstream media.

So, the two conspire to negotiate a massive takedown of our free speech rights, setting up the mainstream media in a favored position the average citizen cannot enjoy. They know they can't directly take down speech per se, so they go after money. that's important, because it sets up the next act--

Start acting like the exercise of speech is an "in-kind" contribution of MONEY to a party. Speech won't be speech--it will be a substitute for money!

Actual speech will be okay still--that is, actual speech in the form of protests, etc. Written "speech," will not be so lucky. That sort of speech will be treated as a contribution to a candidate, and subject to campaign finance laws. So there goes the internet.

This, together with voter fraud, is going to take our country down the toilet. It's happening right now.

[Getsmart64]

The Internet is the last bastion of free speech.....if Kerry is elected....freerepubic.com is outlawed by Xmas 2005...my only hope is that there is a behind the scenes investigation of CBS and Dan Rather and that it is being kept under wraps to find out the truth...and the truth shall overcome....

[WorkingClassFilth]

If I read this article correctly, the upshot is that ANY corporation airing 'journalistic' material that is obviously biased runs a risk of being nailed. If so, then can't this sword cut both ways (i.e. talk radio syndication) and isn't this an ivitation to revisit the 'Fairness Doctrine?' As things stand now, AM radio pretty thinly claims to be entertainment (and it is), but we all know that it is a solid cornerstone of new media information. Seems to me that these ideas might muddy the waters more than they are at present.

I guess I'll wait for the friendly lawyers to weigh in...

[Hank Rearden]

Bush signed it. He approved this assault on the First Amendment.

Thanks a hell of a lot, Republicans.

[crazyhorse691]

Freedom of the press is guaranteed. Freedom from the press has involved arson, mob violence, and now frivolous lawsuits. It all comes down to the eye of the beholder. The MSMs are not in collusion to defeat Bush, rather they are peopled by nitwits that have no problem forcing their views on other people. I think a case could be made against the broadcast press with the FCC for violating the public trust. But, since anybody can start a newspaper, the print media is insulated. Fox News comes the closest to presenting a balance of news and the left wants to shut them down.

[Getsmart64]

"Bush signed it. He approved this assault on the First Amendment."

This...what I thought was a great chess move by Bush...was to show that Bush was not bipartisan and let the SCOTUS view the McCain-Fiengold legislation as unconstitutional....too bad the SCOTUS had one too many idiots on board to throw out the first amendment....

[Hank Rearden]

If Bush had any solid Constitutional principles to begin with, he would have told Congress to shove it up its tail, and it wouldn't have even come to a vote. When it comes right down to it, he really doesn't believe in individual liberty; this CFR crap made that very clear.

Bush has shown many Big Stupid Government tendencies. I'm not impressed.

[Paladin2]

Yep, 'Rats are following the plantation model of political parties.