Jailed For An Insult?

Human Events ^ | 01/28/2009 | Robert Spencer

[Delacon]

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” said Barack Obama to Republican leaders Friday. The new president seems to want to make sure that as few people listen to Rush Limbaugh as possible. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) warned Thursday that “legislation is brewing on Capitol Hill that would take away free speech from broadcasters by reinstating a law” -- the infamous “Fairness Doctrine” -- “that would require talk shows to provide equal time coverage of opposing viewpoints on any issues they discuss.”

This would wipe out conservative talk shows like Limbaugh’s by mandating that programming reflecting a liberal perspective be aired for “balance” if the conservative shows are aired at all -- and with the mainstream media already heavily tilted toward the Left, this would effectively stifle voices that dissent from the Left/liberal line. “The ‘fairness doctrine’ is a violation of free speech,” said Enzi.

Nor is that all. The White House website pledges that “President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation…” The problem with this, of course, is that “hate” is in the eye of the beholder, so “hate crime” laws are essentially tools for enforcing officially-endorsed views. It’s another form of censorship.

“Hate crimes” legislation begets “hate speech” legislation. A cautionary tale is unfolding in the Netherlands this week about how dangerous those can be,

Proving that such tools in the hands of the powerful enable them to silence the powerless and crush dissent, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered that Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament and maker of the notorious film Fitna, be prosecuted for “incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims [sic] and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam [sic] with the nazism.”

“The insult of Islamic worshippers”? The very idea of trying someone for insulting someone else is absurd, and unmasks the Dutch initiative as an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who judges what is an actionable insult and what isn’t is the one who has the power to control the discourse -- and that’s what the prosecution of Wilders is all about. If insulting someone is a crime, can those who are insulted by hate speech laws bring suit against their framers?

The action against Wilders is taking place against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference’s efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including “defamation of Islam” that goes under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.”

If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West -- in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this initiative not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.

But of course, it couldn’t happen here: freedom of speech could never disappear in America, right? After all, we have the First Amendment. But the Fairness Doctrine initiative shows that its protections can be chipped away. And “hate speech” laws could be justified by a declaration that free speech is still a constitutional right, but after all, every right has its limits: “hate speech” will be specifically exempted from its protections -- and “hate speech” will be defined to encompass speaking honestly about the actual texts and teachings of Islam that contain exhortations to violence and assertions of supremacism, unless one is referencing such material approvingly as a believer.

For to speak of such things in any other way would be to “insult” Muslims, as has Geert Wilders.

The looming battle over the Fairness Doctrine -- Doctrine essentially an attempt to muzzle political dissent -- will reveal a great deal about what opponents of Islamization stateside can expect next.

Lovers of freedom should be watching the Wilders case very closely -- as President Obama is already making abundantly clear -- it could happen here.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)", "The Truth About Muhammad" and the forthcoming"Stealth Jihad" (all from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

[Nervous Tick]

Cool. My poor adrenal glands are about all squeezed out over the bailout and other ‘Bammy boondoggles. They could use a break! :-)

[abb]

That extends to political finance, as well. The only thing holding a candidate to obeying campaign finance laws is the candidate’s integrity. It’s not a technical challenge to funnel large amounts of money — domestic AND foreign — to a candidate using (guess what?) the Internet as a tool.

Exactly. The One's just completed campaign drove a stake through the heart of McCain-Feingold more effectively than a hundred court rulings. The pattern's been set. Money is fungible and so is digitized information.

[bronxboy]

I don’t believe the fairness doctrine will be brought back...anytime soon. But I’ll be watching carefully...I take the 1st amendment very seriously.

[Delacon]

“And to be sure, I agree Central Government will attempt censorship, but it will fail, I opine. See ‘Gutenberg,’ ‘Bible,’ and ‘Roman Catholic Church.’”

Well I am not as optimistic. While I agree that the human desire for freedom will always ultimately prevail, efforts to control that freedom by government will always drive towards excess until that very human spirit rebels. There is an ebb and flow. It is inevitable and the founders knew this. That's why they put pen to paper to try and slow the tide and created the constitution. Honestly I'd be surprised if any of them thought that our government would last as a republic for as long as it has. These things happen in small increments and to assume that the government wont be able control the Internet is wishful thinking. Btw, owning a bible(or version of the bible) can still get you killed in many countries, and many more before now. And catholics weren't as free as protestants even in this country for most of our own country's history.

[abb]

Well I am not as optimistic.

I think you are more optimistic than you let on. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting here and trying to educate people on how the Fairness Doctrine might be re-imposed. Hopeless people aren't proactive.

I have a brother that way. For fifty years, he's been bellyaching about the death of conservatism. But does he ever get up off his dead ass and do anything? No. I always talk about doing this or studying that or working for candidates and so forth. His response is to tell me I'm wasting my time; it's too late; "they've" taken control; yadda, yadda, yadda.

The day I get like that is the day I'm slashing my wrists. I'm going down fighting.

[Delacon]

“I don’t believe the fairness doctrine will be brought back...anytime soon. But I’ll be watching carefully...I take the 1st amendment very seriously.”

Look for the terms localism and diversity to be used in the context of broadcast regulation. Of course they aren’t going to call it the fairness doctrine anymore. Like global warming being called climate change, amnesty being called immigration reform, increased government spending being called stimulus, the left isn’t going to call it fairness doctrine anymore. They are going to insist that the brunt of broadcasting be devoted to “local opinion” thereby shutting down the big names in talk radio and dividing and conquering.

[bronxboy]

Good point...local station strategy.

[Glenn]

I don’t believe the fairness doctrine will be brought back

It may not be called that. Just hope that it is easily reversible when the next RINO administration takes over.

[Delacon]

“The day I get like that is the day I’m slashing my wrists. I’m going down fighting.”

Well ya can’t go down fighting if ya slash your wrists, so don’t.:) Just keep on fighting and get your licks in. It is possible to be a pessimist about the future yet still be hopeful for mankind.

[sig226]

I agree. The studies are everywhere. The news media invented the method to demonstrate bias, and it can be used against them. Want a fairness doctrine? No problem. It means that NPR’s cast will take a fifty percent cut, the national networks will do likewise, and MSNBC will die the death it has so long deserved.

Plus, Limbaugh takes liberal callers all the time. He can just screeen for a few more, make sure they’re complete morons, and he’s presenting their side.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the knife cuts both ways. NPR and the other LIB rats would all start complaining when and if this takes effect. They are going after the select few with buckshot and the collateral damage is going to be horrendous.

Nonsense. NPR et. al. are objective. They truly believe that.

The challenge is getting the legal system to recognize the fallacy in that assumption. In my analysis it is easy; in a courtroom of course, your mileage may vary. But there are three sitting justices who voted against McCain-Feingold in the McConnell v. FEC test case; if Alito and Roberts go as expected the First Amendment would be vindicated.

[DBrow]

If I were to try to control the internets, I’d do it on many levels.

First, no web anonymity. Verified ID for everyone online, perhaps with the help of some government-furnished technology*.

Second, designate certain sites as illegal, then by court order have their URLs removed from the DNS servers, and heavy fines for ISPs that allowed content from those sites to pass through or reside on their servers.

Third, a $200 reward for anyone who finds illegal content online (hate speech, intolerance, homophobia, anti-progressive thought, Rushism, you get the picture) to be paid regardless of whether or not there is an arrest.

Fourth, allow local police departments to confiscate the computers and other property of offenders who are convicted. Not their homes, or cars, right away, I’d save that incentive once the ball got rolling.

Fifth, allow, encourage, and possibly subsidize civil suits against owners of websites and their server hosts and ISPs for disseminating hurtful content.

I’d encourage news outlets to run several stories a week about how someone became a victim of other people’s internet abuses, and stories of arrests and internet-bans-for-life of miscreants.

Within a decade there would only be sales-oriented sites, official government or MSM news sites, careful entertainment sites, and the like.

For the children.

*So if someone here said Barack Hussain Obama is a murtad fitri, that person could expect a visit.

[LS]

Boy, you know how to send a chill down a person’s back, don’t you.

[indthkr]

"Wrong. There already are efforts to apply the fairness doctrine to the internet because it also is a thorn in the side of those that would like to silence dissent"

I guess that means an end to Rap Music, not to mention the rest of the Entertainment Industry.

[Nervous Tick]

>> If I were to try to control the internets, I’d do it on many levels. &etc

Fair enough.

Let’s leave aside, for the moment, the *practicality* of carrying out some of the tactics you suggest, and just assume they are all feasible.

My counter-argument: such actions would be OPPOSED at many levels by a huge number of capable opponents.

For many that we would consider left-wing and who almost certainly supported the Obama/Dem takeover, these tactics you mention would be anathema: showstoppers to re-election of those attempting them.

Should a government — particularly a “sinister Bushitler/Cheney Fascist Pig government” but indeed ANY government — attempt this sort of thing, they would be opposed not only from the right, but also from the left like you would not believe.

Kos and DU and FreeRepublic and Reason and Townhall and Truthout and so on and so forth would find themselves (temporarily) occupying the same bed.

Mind you, a lot of these leftist “kids” are exactly the sort that you would want on your side opposing this kind of repression. They know the tricks and the tools of the trade.

So, again I’ll say, I see the danger and it’s great to be aware of it and spread awareness of it, but I think there are significant forces arrayed against it as well.

[Delacon]

Tick I appreciate your skepticism but how about this. They aren’t going to use the Fairness Doctrine per se but a policy that advocates localism and diversity. IE, STOP THESE NASTY NATIONAL PROGRAMS and insist that all stations do something like 75% local programming from 6an to 9pm in the name of local civic responsibility and “all people who live near the station” diversity. That of course will achieve the same ends as the fairness doctrine by putting Rush et al out of business. How are we going to win a debate against this so called concern for diversity and local civic responsibility? How WONT that sell to the middle and left of the spectrum?

[Nervous Tick]

>> How are we going to win a debate against this so called concern for diversity and local civic responsibility? How WONT that sell to the middle and left of the spectrum?

Economics, that’s how.

Sure, this will *appeal* to the middle and left. But they won’t listen! No listeners, no advertising.

Who will pay the station’s bills? NPR?

[Delacon]

Tick AM was all but on its way out because the government didn’t care about its economic viability prior to the removal of the fairness doctrine. It was almost all local. Local sports, news and gardening shows but no powerhouse revenue generators like political talk radio. If Obama wants to shut political talkradio up, he wont be concerned about who loses money at all. AM will become a fraction of what it is now in terms of revenue and Obama will be fine with that.

[DBrow]

“showstoppers to re-election of those attempting them.”

I don’t think voting is all that important now, especially with ACORN getting more than Four Billion Dollars.

What’s important is who gets to register, and when and with what ID; what absentee ballots are allowed in; who gets access to the polls; who counts the votes the first time, what rules are used for the second, and new rules for the third recount; what do you do with “bad ballots”, and how do you determine voter intent when no choice for a particular office is marked.

Algor in 2000 was a trial, the Washington State Governor’s race was a refinement, and the ongoing Franken farce is a further refinement.

The people who brought us these events and more are now in charge of making the rules.

Remember 0bama’s first election, he didn’t run, he eliminated every opponent using eligibility rules, filing deadline rules, and irregularities in signature gathering. His second election was similar. And while Congress acted to assure mcCain could run even though he was not born on or in a US territory, there are a dozen ignored court cases regarding The Chosen One’s actual bert cert (not the Hawaii COLB).

As for opposition, many capable people are opposed to the War On Some Drugs, of all political persuasions, yet it rages on. Mostly because Drug Warriors keep getting elected, but opposition seems ineffective.

The start would be the seemingly innocuous Net Anonymity issue. Why, that poor teen who suicided because an adult used a fake sign-in to lead the child on could have been prevented if only we had Net Accountability, a reasonable common-sense safe approach to using the internet. How many more must die?

[bronxboy]

How about a conservative administration...one can dream.