This Page

has been moved to new address

Wanted By Liberals: Freedom Of Speech Removed

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: Wanted By Liberals: Freedom Of Speech Removed

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Wanted By Liberals: Freedom Of Speech Removed

US Constitution: First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And this, the most hallowed of all rights afforded all lawful Americans under our wondrous Constitution's First Amendment, is under fire. And once Liberals come for the subjects of HR3302, they'll soon come after you.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner in Insight Magazine writes:

Allies close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are promoting legislation, which if passed, will take off the air prominent conservative radio hosts such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—along with thousands of smaller conservative broadcasters. The bill, entitled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," is sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a leftist Democrat from New York. The legislation aims to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” of the 1940’s: “all views” are to be given equal time on radio. In particular, the Federal Communications Commission would have the power to oversee and change radio and television content. The goal is to tilt the ideological balance of power away from the right on the nation’s air waves.

At a recent National Conference for Media Reform, sponsored by Free Press, a Massachusetts-based group heavily subsidized by Soros, Hinchey laid bare his plan to silence conservative voices on television and radio. The anti-war McGovernite attacked Savage, Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts, saying they were “responsible” for leading the U.S. into the Iraq war, as well as for preparing the ground for future military invasions of Iran and Syria. According to Hinchey, these men pose a “threat” to American national security. Hence, under his bill, they would be fired.

"All of that stuff will end," Hinchey said.

The so-called Fairness Doctrine is something on which I've posted on prior occasions, most recently on January 15th.

The FCC discontinued the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and wrote:

We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

But now that the Democrats are in majority, the sterling Dennis Kucinich has reintroduced a bill to bring back the Fairness Doctrine because, you see, it's all about control and what you can't have via the fair marketplace or by the fair vote, one must acquire by the unfair ruling or unfair bill.

Kuhner bats the ball right out of the park when he writes:

However, this begs the question of why do radio networks have most of their shows hosted by conservatives? The answer is a simple one: They’re popular with listeners. Talk radio is overwhelmingly right-leaning because it satisfies the public’s growing appetite for alternative news and commentary to the liberal media establishment. If the Democrats don’t like the opinions of Savage, Limbaugh or Hannity, then all they need to do is go to CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times or The Washington Post. There are countless outlets peddling the anti-war, anti-Bush mantras of the left.


The attempt to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” represents a direct assault on freedom of speech. It is a concession by liberals that they are losing the battle in the marketplace of ideas. Unable to compete with conservatives in the arena of rhetoric, facts and reasoned argument, Democrats are resorting to the Stalinist method of stifling all dissenting points of view. Unable to out-argue and out-debate Savage, Limbaugh and Hannity, liberals are hoping to silence them—once and for all.

Ladies and gentlemen, when one falls, so fall the others. The Liberals (or "Progressives," as they like to think of themselves) want nothing more than to remove freedom of speech. What does freedom of speech protect and what was its intent? To protect speech which might be interpreted during the temper of the times as challenging or seemingly-unpopular. When free speech in radio falls, then falls on TV, then falls from the press, can you guess who's next?

The bloggers. YOU.



Blogger Gayle said...

How can they possibly think they can shut down conservative talk-show hosts? If they do that, then all media should be shut down, including the liberal MSM! However, I'm not saying that would be right either, BZ. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, but they cannot and must not have it all one way! Dumb #@!%'s!

Thu May 03, 10:07:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Gayle said...

In addition, even if Congress were to pass this pos bill, it wouldn't get past President Bush's desk, but if it were somehow to do so, or if we lose the next election (heaven forbid) then the Supreme Court would overrule it. What really ticks me off is the fact that they are even trying it. As for Soros, that megalomaniac wants to rule the world!

Thu May 03, 10:24:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Gayle: that's the reason for a "review" of the First Amendment for the challenged amongst us; i.e., "Progressives" & Liberals. I pale to use the word, but Communism and Socialism begins in precisely this fashion: stifle dissent and free market expression; allow only what the GOVERNMENT approves.


Thu May 03, 11:14:00 AM PDT  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

One of the interesting bits of things to see is how that sort of thing works... Harrison at The Possum Bistro has a great article in which we get a glimpse of the Singaporean Constitution and freedom of speech. Actually, freedom of *anything* as he describes it, in which the people there act free but when the government wishes to do anything, your rights evaporate in the miasma of what is and is not allowable.

This is exactly what Orwell was warning us about... the stifling of thought via restriction of language. Soon words themselves become meaningless as the State wields raw power.

There is no such thing as 'hate speech' only hateful people. And as we need to be able to smell roses, we need the ability to smell toxins in the air... so to do we need hateful speech so we can address the awfulness that is behind them. If you can't do that then you have no means of protecting yourself from becoming a pawn of the State.

Thu May 03, 01:56:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Gayle said...

Unfortunately it looks as though Orwell was extremely prophetic, as many authors often are.

Thu May 03, 03:50:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Why is it so difficult for ProgLibs to see the writing on the wall, the "logical extension?"


Thu May 03, 04:57:00 PM PDT  
Blogger shoprat said...

Your observations are noted and correct, but I really love that picture of Hitlery. If you made it good work, if you found it, good find. It should be seen over and over again.

Thu May 03, 05:06:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Shoprat: I discovered it floating about the digital domain. Please, click on it and copy away. . .


Thu May 03, 05:33:00 PM PDT  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

The Fairness Doctrine came about in an era when access to information was limited to tv and radio (as well as print). With the internet, we have more freedom of information flow.

I blogged about the recent National Conference for Media Reform. Look at everyone who is push-peddling the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, and it is all liberal activists. They don't want fairness. They want to stifle conservative voices.

Fri May 04, 10:03:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Wordsmith: precisely. That is why Progressives, Liberals and the Democrats are our New Brownshirts.


Fri May 04, 02:09:00 PM PDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with liberalism is that it's so unnatural and philosophically unsound that you have to force it on people in order to implement it.

Unfortunately, if you can get away with that, it's pretty easy to convince people it "the right thing". It seems so innocuous and harmless, even beneficial: Keep the earth clean, let everybody have a say, be nice to people.

It is possible to do these things without repressing individual freedom by teaching individuals to exercise their free will and personal responsibility. Yet the liberal chooses to impose his or her will on others

Sat May 05, 08:51:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Robo: it is the imposition of their will that is truly the issue as they cannot compete in the open and free market in terms of business OR in terms of IDEAS.


Sat May 05, 09:10:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home