Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee
More from the "Who can possibly be surprised by THIS?" Department:
The "Fairness Doctrine," if you'll recall, was the FCC requirement that any "personal attack" made over the airwaves had to be "balanced" with "equal time" for the attackee, arranged in advance. Otherwise the "attack" - whether an off-the-cuff comment or a formal on-air editorial - would not be allowed. Broadcast outlets and stations could be fined or even de-licensed for violating this "doctrine."
It's somewhat more than a coincidence that the scrapping of the FD in 1987 opened the floodgates for first Rush Limbaugh and then an avalanche of talk radio shows, resurrecting the AM band and providing the center-right, long underrepresented in the media, with programming catering to their market segment. It's also something more than serendipitous that Republican political fortunes spiked upward in the early nineties, culminating in the election of George W. Bush to go with a GOP Congress in 2000.
Least unexpected of all is that the center-left didn't like these developments, resented the taking away of their media monopoly, and, if they ever got back into power, would do everything they could to silence their political opponents and restore the prior First Amendment-strangling status quo.
Don't believe me? Read it for yourself:
Civil liberties? Constitutional freedoms? The first item of the venerated Bill of Rights? Pish-posh; Democrats can't be bothered with such arcane fripperies other than when it is politically convenient. They've got their regained power to protect, the founding documents be damned. That's all that matters to them.
And we're not talking about just a general, blanket muzzling, either; the Dems have an enemies list:
How's that for authoritarian thuggery? To give it some perspective, remember a year and a half ago when the New York Times blew the cover off the NSA terrorist surveillance program and some on the center-right merely broached the topic of the then-GOP-controlled Congress hauling the "newspaper of record" before investigatory hearings? Remember the quailing horror from official Republican circles that doused the notion before it could even start cellular division? And remember the left's response? Oh, good Lord, it was end of the freaking world, the long-awaited "Repugnican police state," the end of freedom of the press, yatah, yatah, yatah.
But here are the Democrats, back in the saddle, and thinking nothing of using the police powers of the state to restrict and harass the other side of the aisle, and the First Amendment as single-ply bathroom tissue.
Nor are their efforts limited to gagging the real "mainstream media"; the right to "peacably assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances" is also in Donk crosshairs:
This crackdown was tried in the waning days of the last Democrat Congress in late 1994. Back then it was dubbed "Hillary's revenge" after the successful grassroots conservative campaign that shot down her health care putsch in flames. Now it's back, right before her ascendancy to the presidency, which makes it exponentially more dangerous:
That's the connection I made when I heard Senator McCain speak last night of the importance he'd place on "reaching across the aisle" and "working with" the Democrats. It's part & parcel of why he'll never, EVER be the Republican nominee for president. I wish it could also be why the Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, are sent packing next November. McCain-Feingold makes that exceedingly unlikely; the unconstitutional legislation the majority is trying to ram through Congress now would make it impossible.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to grasp that. Hopefully filibusters can kill both measures deader than smelts. Given that President Bush promised to veto campaign finance reform in 2000 and then signed it two years later (with the SCOTUS' subsequent endorsement), I have little confidence that the Senate won't be the last line of free speech's defense.
According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will "aggressively pursue" reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Representative Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence. But now, Pelosi has moved things to the front burner....
The "Fairness Doctrine," if you'll recall, was the FCC requirement that any "personal attack" made over the airwaves had to be "balanced" with "equal time" for the attackee, arranged in advance. Otherwise the "attack" - whether an off-the-cuff comment or a formal on-air editorial - would not be allowed. Broadcast outlets and stations could be fined or even de-licensed for violating this "doctrine."
It's somewhat more than a coincidence that the scrapping of the FD in 1987 opened the floodgates for first Rush Limbaugh and then an avalanche of talk radio shows, resurrecting the AM band and providing the center-right, long underrepresented in the media, with programming catering to their market segment. It's also something more than serendipitous that Republican political fortunes spiked upward in the early nineties, culminating in the election of George W. Bush to go with a GOP Congress in 2000.
Least unexpected of all is that the center-left didn't like these developments, resented the taking away of their media monopoly, and, if they ever got back into power, would do everything they could to silence their political opponents and restore the prior First Amendment-strangling status quo.
Don't believe me? Read it for yourself:
The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. "First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen," says a senior adviser to Pelosi. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race [i.e. Fred Thompson] who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008." [emphases added]
Civil liberties? Constitutional freedoms? The first item of the venerated Bill of Rights? Pish-posh; Democrats can't be bothered with such arcane fripperies other than when it is politically convenient. They've got their regained power to protect, the founding documents be damned. That's all that matters to them.
And we're not talking about just a general, blanket muzzling, either; the Dems have an enemies list:
According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular - and highly rated - conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.
"They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving," says a Government Reform committee staffer. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him." [emphases added]
How's that for authoritarian thuggery? To give it some perspective, remember a year and a half ago when the New York Times blew the cover off the NSA terrorist surveillance program and some on the center-right merely broached the topic of the then-GOP-controlled Congress hauling the "newspaper of record" before investigatory hearings? Remember the quailing horror from official Republican circles that doused the notion before it could even start cellular division? And remember the left's response? Oh, good Lord, it was end of the freaking world, the long-awaited "Repugnican police state," the end of freedom of the press, yatah, yatah, yatah.
But here are the Democrats, back in the saddle, and thinking nothing of using the police powers of the state to restrict and harass the other side of the aisle, and the First Amendment as single-ply bathroom tissue.
Nor are their efforts limited to gagging the real "mainstream media"; the right to "peacably assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances" is also in Donk crosshairs:
First on the agenda is a bill restricting lobbying, which is heading for the House floor with lightning speed. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to pass it tomorrow, sending it to the full House for a final vote next Tuesday or Wednesday. ...
But the legislation may be amended on the floor to restrict grassroots groups that encourage citizens to contact members of Congress. The amendment, pushed by Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, would require groups that organize such grassroots campaigns to register as "lobbyists" and file detailed quarterly reports on their donors and activities. The law would apply to any group that took in at least $100,000 in any given quarter for "paid communications campaigns" aimed at mobilizing the public.
This crackdown was tried in the waning days of the last Democrat Congress in late 1994. Back then it was dubbed "Hillary's revenge" after the successful grassroots conservative campaign that shot down her health care putsch in flames. Now it's back, right before her ascendancy to the presidency, which makes it exponentially more dangerous:
The possible outcomes are disturbing. For example, Oprah Winfrey operates a website dedicated to urging people to contact Congress to demand intervention in Darfur. If her Web master took in over $100,000 in revenue from Ms. Winfrey and similar clients in a single quarter, he might be forced to make disclosures under the law.
"It's huge," Jay Sekulow of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, told The Hill newspaper. "It's the most significant restriction on grassroots activity in recent history. I'd put it up there with the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" - the formal name for McCain-Feingold.
That's the connection I made when I heard Senator McCain speak last night of the importance he'd place on "reaching across the aisle" and "working with" the Democrats. It's part & parcel of why he'll never, EVER be the Republican nominee for president. I wish it could also be why the Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, are sent packing next November. McCain-Feingold makes that exceedingly unlikely; the unconstitutional legislation the majority is trying to ram through Congress now would make it impossible.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to grasp that. Hopefully filibusters can kill both measures deader than smelts. Given that President Bush promised to veto campaign finance reform in 2000 and then signed it two years later (with the SCOTUS' subsequent endorsement), I have little confidence that the Senate won't be the last line of free speech's defense.
posted by JASmius at 9:42 AM
<<< Home