So does this guy:
Dictatorships must get control of the lines of communication to control the population..They cannot tolerate ideas other than their own, so opposing views must be eliminated. Let’s hope our citizenry is aware enough not to let this happen.
So does this guy:
If "Congress is considering" this, someone or several in Congress have to have introduced this as legislation. It would have been immensely helpful to know who, exactly, is proposing this, whether its advocates are in the House or the Senate, or both, what kind of support they have, what party they belong to, where it is in the committee process, etc. Or does this mean they're sitting around a big table at the Monocle or the Palm talking about it? This guy provided a lot of good information, but he left out some crucial facts.
Excellent article. Bookmarking.The laissez-faire or “classical liberal” approach regards freedom of speech as a fundamental individual right that government must protect, whereas the “progressive” approach views speech as worthy of protection only insofar as it helps promote the “public interest.”The problem with the "public interest" standard is of course, that is assumes that the government defines the public interest. The government consisting of a bunch of incumbent politicians, its idea of "the public interest" is "incumbent reelection" pretty much.
Big Journalism, aka Associated Press journalism, promotes the conceit of its own objectivity, which pretty is much the same thing as claiming that its own perspective is congruent with "the public interest."But journalism's interest is in interesting the public - and what interests the public is often antithetical to "the public interest." "Man Bites Dog" and "If it bleeds, it leads" interest the public but are not in the public interest.The only way to even attempt to be objective is to take into consideration any reasons why you might not be objective. That is the exact opposite of claiming to be objective. So by claiming objectivity, journalists demonstrate conclusively that they are not even trying to be objective.
Once dispose of the assumption that journalism is objective and embodies the public interest, and the entire rationale for censorship and "campaign finance reform" collapses. Freedom of speech and press are rights of the people, not privileges of noblemen called "journalists."
