Pro-Constitution, Anti-Globalist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Communist, and usually with an attempt at historical and economic context ************************13th Year ----- 2009-2021*****
After Rush’s “controversial” comments about Sandra Fluke, and her weird testimony before Congress, the radical left has orchestrated a campaign to silence Rush by intimidating his sponsors. The main thing wrong with Rush’s comment was that he appeared to go after the person instead of the issue. His apology should be sufficient.
As Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator (h/t The Daley Gator) points out, the radical leftists are engaged in a coordinated effort to silence conservatives. They have been successful in getting Lou Dobbs off CNN, Glenn Beck off Fox News, Pat Buchanan off MSNBC, and now they’re intensifying their efforts to go after Rush.
One sponsor who has been with Rush’s show for a long time, Carbonite, is a special case, as Lord points out. CEO David Friend is closely associated with Soros-affiliated groups, Media Matters, MoveOn.org and the like, and has a history of supporting radical leftist entities.
If you are interested in standing up for Rush Limbaugh, or at least finding out that there is more to the story than simple indignation by these sponsors, who are behaving in a cowardly fashion, you should read Lord’s article in full. It’s eight pages long and filled with substantial information, not some conspiracy-theory nonsense.
This is another example of how the left is attacking free speech in America. Note that even the president got involved. He’s one of those who wants Rush to go away. Fluke, meanwhile, Lord points out, has stopped a pro-life speech at Cornell by protest, and she was also a guest on the Ed Schultz show after the Limbaugh comments. Schultz once called talk-radio star Laura Ingraham a “slut,” but I suppose Fluke was OK with that. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin worse than that, but certainly the left has no problem with it.
The CEO of Carbonite hypocritically says he hopes their withdrawal of sponsorship will help lead to more “civil discourse.” I purchased Carbonite’s service because of Rush’s ads, and found it to be quite good, but I won’t be renewing next time.
Image via WikipediaMichael Copps’ speech (PDF here) was on December 2, 2010, but the issue remains open for discussion. Conservatives should target this for fierce debate.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says that American journalism is in bad way, and that it’s up to the federal government, specifically the Federal Communications Commission, to fix it. Of course, to the current powers that be in the Executive Branch and Democratic leaders in Congress, it’s the federal government’s duty to define and fix everything they imagine to be wrong, and to assign blame to conservatives.
Copps wants to spruce up traditional media by requiring a “public value test” for licensing, and reducing time between renewals from eight years to four years. How he longs for the days when the FCC could closely control or influence content, based on the fact that spectrum was scarce, and as a public resource, could be controlled to a great extent by government.
If that line of argument ever had merit, it has next to none now. There is no lack of “diversity” (which government claims to want but doesn’t want to allow), as there are innumerable sources of information available to anyone who has cable or satellite TV and the Internet. The only diversity the government wants is ethnic diversity and male-female diversity, and not diversity of ideas that may stray from the liberal-socialist-fascist mold.
Copps’ “enhanced disclosure,” especially in regard to political advertising, serves no real purpose except to place onerous restrictions and red tape on broadcasters.
As reported by CNS News.com, concerning Copps’ speech at Columbia:
Copps said the FCC and Congress in the future will need to examine the rules governing the structure of media ownership. And he advocated increasing support for public broadcasting, which he described as “the jewel of our media landscape.” [1]
Apparently, he’d like all broadcasting to be more like NPR and PBS. Ghastly thought!
The problem with all this is that it seriously would violate the First Amendment. But liberals are a lot less interested in the Constitution and Bill of Rights than they are in silencing their opposition. Where is it written that the federal government shall control public discourse? Not in the Constitution. It is a document which prescribes a government that is strong where it needs to be, but strictly limited in its powers.
As Michael Hurd points out in Capitalism Magazine.com,
Obama undoubtedly realizes that his greatest enemy is dissent. The apparatus is in place for impairing if not crushing dissent, and it’s known as the FCC. It's probably true that no prior President could have gotten away with it. This one might, not because he's widely respected or wildly popular (he's neither). But America, especially in the last few years, has been in a downward spiral of what psychology calls, “learned helplessness.” The more the government takes away our freedoms, the more helpless too many of us feel – leaving the government in a position to take away still more powers. It's a vicious cycle that ends with totalitarianism. [2]
According to Adweek.com,
In a Dec. 6 letter to Copps, [Rep. Joe] Barton [R-TX] asked Copps to explain in more detail what he meant by imposing a public-value test on broadcast news every four years as a contingency of license renewal.
“I hope...that you do not mean to suggest that it is the job of the federal government, through the FCC, to determine the content that is available for Americans to consume,” said Barton.
“Although your concern for providing American citizens information they need to ‘make intelligent decisions about the full direction of their country’ may stem from the very best of intentions, increasing the federal government’s role in the composition of the information Americans have at their disposal—in an information marketplace that is bigger and more easily accessible than ever before—is unwise policy and raises serious questions of constitutionality.” [3]
I would urge the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, as they prepare to defund Obamacare, to also defund NPR, PBS, and the FCC. And while they’re at it, the EPA and a several other government agencies.
When we have officials such as Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) calling for restructuring the boundaries of free speech, and Michael Copps advocating such federal control of broadcasting, along with the FCC’s other initiatives to censor the internet, we are in danger of losing constitutional freedoms. It doesn’t have to happen. Conservatives in government now have enough power to stop it. I hope they have the courage to do so.
“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.” – First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press (including internet freedom) is in the crosshairs of the Obama Administration. There is underway a process designed to lead to close government control of “free” expression, leading by steps to a fascist-socialist-Marxist end, that is, government control of individual speech and public media.
It sounds so innocuous as explained by Obama people. It’s just government doing its job to protect the people from others who would take “unjust” advantage of their ability to publish, broadcast, blog, or otherwise convey their opinions and beliefs.
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a “moderate” court pick (not liberal enough for some of the radical left?) has written disturbing things about freedom of speech.
Cass Sunstein
Kagan hired Cass Sunstein as a Harvard Law professor in 2008, and declared,
“Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time -- the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential. His work in any one of the fields he pursues -- administrative law and policy, constitutional law and theory, behavioral economics and law, environmental law, to name a non-exhaustive few -- would put him in the very front ranks of legal scholars; the combination is singular and breathtaking.” [1]
Sunstein now is President Obama’s “regulatory czar,” and is busy finding more things to regulate and implementing new controls.
While the views of Kagan and Sunstein on free speech might appear to be just an approach from a different direction, they really represent a profound shift from American constitutional tradition. As every conservative knows, liberals are in support of reinterpreting the Constitution to arrive at their desired outcomes, in this case, tending to silence opposition to government policies.
It is a serious and seriously wrong assumption that government has, constitutionally, the authority to control or regulate public discourse. Constitutional restrictions on free speech have traditionally been limited to actions which happen to involve speech, but which constitute an imminent danger of lawless action, generally violent action such as a riot or armed insurrection. Under the Constitution, expression of any and all views is permitted, though with some requirements as to general peace, e.g., parade permits, noise limits, etc.
The Supreme Court has held such restrictions on government (and the First Amendment is about what government cannot do, not what citizens cannot do or must do), for example:
…[B]y 1964 the Court could say with unanimity: “we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”[2] And in 1969, it was said that the cases “have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”[3]
The First Amendment’s wording is very strong against laws restricting the freedoms it mentions. But the current administration has demonstrated that they have little to no regard for the Constitution, evidenced by the fact that virtually everything they are doing in domestic policy is either unconstitutional or constitutionally questionable.
Cass Sunstein is in favor of regulating the internet in order to achieve a “balance” of ideas.
Mondo Frazier at DBKP quotes Sunstein as follows”
“The sites of one point of view agree to provide links to sites of the other point of view. So if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site. And vice versa, just to make it easy for people to access to competing views.
“Or maybe a popup on your screen that would show you an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view.
“If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction, it would be great and if we can’t get voluntary arrangements maybe Congress should hold hearings about mandates.” [4]
Frazier opines:
Sunstein verbally shuffles around and throws out the “aw shucks” smokescreen: “If we could do this voluntarily…”
BUT, as usual, a Cass Sunstein argument devolves to: if the people won’t do what’s good for themselves voluntarily, government will have to nudge them in the right direction–using the force of the government, of course.
Readers have a simple formula for determining loss of freedom: when a government official talks of “doing something for your–or the public’s–own good,” it means you’re about to lose part of your freedom. [5]
I completely agree.
Ed Lasky at American Thinker writes:
In the past, we have seen Barack Obama and his supporters attempt to chill any sort of scrutiny or criticism of him. Many of his records - whether they are transcripts from Occidental or Columbia - have not been released. He lost his senior thesis (on Soviet nuclear disarmament) from Columbia University (how likely was that to happen, given that he felt his own life was important enough to write an autobiography in his young 20s), and his records from his time in the Illinois state senate were “lost.”
Having records “disappeared” (as well as ditching embarrassing people from his past under the bus) was just one aspect of attempts to avoid scrutiny. Another manifestation of this dynamic, was the constant use during the campaign of the “race card” to brand any critics as racists or smear artists. [6]
In Sunstein’s book, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, he calls for a “New Deal” for “free speech,” analogous to FDR’s New Deal rather than the traditional “marketplace of ideas” approach of Justice Brandeis and others. [7] This indeed is a suggestion for radical change and is easily seen to violate the letter of the First Amendment, and the spirit as well.
Sunstein points out that New Deal laws and agencies restricted speech, for example, the SEC, the FCC, the NLRB, and the FTC. [8]. I would point out that many of FDR’s New Deal laws and agencies were unconstitutional. By the time the courts got around to declaring some of them so, the damage was already done. Sunstein leaves little doubt that he regards free speech as a “problem.”
Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan , as Solicitor General, represents the United States Government in Supreme Court Cases. Her job as an advocate requires her to argue the cases she’s given, but, for example, in U.S. vs. Stevens she seems to go well beyond her duty, to introduce a suggested new standard for protected speech.
In this case, she argued that a law prohibiting the distribution and sale in international or interstate commerce of materials depicting cruelty to animals (e.g. dog fights, cock fights, etc.) was constitutional notwithstanding an appeals court ruling against it. While she presented some good arguments, she also contributed this: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” [9]
A Chicago Sun-Times “Other Views” article (from Stop the ACLU) reports as follows:
Writing for the 8-1 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts called this claim “startling and dangerous,” adding: “The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.” [10]
Kagan’s view is that government may decide if certain speech is worth protecting.
“In Kagan's view, the main goal of First Amendment doctrine is not to maximize freedom or promote robust debate, but to ferret out impermissible motives for speech restrictions.” [11]
From the transcript on Citizens United rehearing oral arguments (09/09/2009):
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But we don't put our -- we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats; and if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?
GENERAL KAGAN: I think a -- a pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that 441 b only applies to video and not to print. It does – [12]
In her journal article, “Private Speech, Public Purpose,” Kagan describes three theories or approaches to free speech under the First Amendment. First, the idea that the First Amendment is designed to give maximum freedom and opportunity of expression, which is the traditional interpretation reflected in Chief Justice Roberts’s comment.
The second is, she says, “audience-based.” “Under this theory, restrictions on speech pose more or less danger depending not on the sum total of speech prevented, but on the extent to which the restrictions distort or impoverish the realm of discourse.” [13]
Of course, the preventer is government, taking to itself the power to control public discourse. This cannot be reconciled with the clear wording of the First Amendment, and must result in arbitrary control and suppression of speech the government finds unfavorable. This approach is favored by those who would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine or try to silence talk radio, etc. This seems to be the Obama Administration’s preferred view.
The third approach is a search for the motive of the governmental actor, which Kagan seems to think is really the main concern in First Amendment cases. “The application of First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting.” [14]
Thus she focuses here on the source rather than the consequences.
It must be emphasized that the views of Cass Sunstein and Elena Kagan are compatible with, if not identical to, the views of Barack Obama. When they speak officially, in their current capacities, they speak for the president. It is clear, then, as we already knew, that Obama is not a great advocate for freedom of speech, and is prepared to restrict it if it will help his agenda. One reason he appointed Kagan, as some have stated, is that he wants her on the Supreme Court to vote for him in case any of his policies are challenged.
In a position as important as Justice of the Supreme Court, there should be the highest regard for the Constitution, and for the responsibility of government to protect liberty rather than diminish it. Kagan fails this test, reinterpreting the Constitution through false assumptions (governmental authority to regulate public discourse and to determine what speech may be banned, etc.) Liberals believe that all problems are the responsibility of the federal government, and that the government has adequate authority to deal with them as they wish. The letter of the Constitution need never get in the way.
This is the Progressive view: government experts taking over decisions normally made by the people for themselves, including who may say what, and how they may say it. Their goal is to get everything into harmony with the great fascist-socialist program. The confirmation of Kagan should be resisted and, if possible, filibustered.
[7] Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: The Free Press, a Division of Simon and Schuster, First Free Press paperback edition, 1995, p. 34, previewed at books.google.com.
It may be yesterday’s news, but some items need a certain amount of reflection and consideration of what their consequences might be, or just how developments might fit into overall trends.
As Noam Amdurski at Matzav.com points out, President Barack Obama has ordered a significant change “in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: ‘The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.’” [1]
This conflict, previously considered to be so great, now cannot even be described as what it actually is against, “militant Islamic radicalism.”
This change is supposed to reassure Muslims that America doesn’t view them primarily as terrorist threats. But why is it necessary to change national security documents? To achieve a little positive PR that will not in any way change or ameliorate the actual threat? Well, we don’t want Muslims mad at us, but why would they care about such a document that only factually describes a situation, and should not be seen as offensive to anyone, except maybe actual terrorists.
The President has received criticism about this change. Just one example:
Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama’s engagement effort. It “doesn’t appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit” in the Middle East peace process or in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he said.
Obama runs the political risk of seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone deaf on national security issues at home, Feaver said.
The White House dismisses such criticism. In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech. [2]
Of course, the White House dismisses such criticism, as they dismiss most criticism. But the professor’s point is valid, and his opinion is probably shared by most Americans familiar with the situation.
But some people live to be offended, and if they speak up (certain politically-favored ones, particularly), then everything must stop and be changed to appease them.
It may seem laudable that the President is taking steps to avoid offense, but, in fact, he is taking steps to prevent effective communication. In George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother saw to it that the Newspeak Dictionary was revised at intervals, and always by the removal of words the regime didn’t like. He knew that words are the building blocks of thoughts, so making certain words unavailable (soon to be forgotten, it was hoped), would stop people from having thoughts offensive to the regime.
Apparently, it is offensive to Obama to refer to militant Islamic radicals in those terms, although that is the most accurate way to refer to them.
Obama’s revision of official vocabulary put FBI Director Robert Mueller in the awkward position of communicating the Islamist terrorist threat without using the prohibited words:
In Senate testimony, Robert Meuller does everything he can to suggest that he is talking about Islamic extremists. He cites Nidal Hasan’s mass murder of American soldiers at Fort Hood. He cites Mumbai attacks planner David Headley. [3]
How long before the government tries to mandate that everyone follow Obama’s example, such as schools receiving government aid, other agencies, etc.?
Front Page Magazine online had the following comments:
On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote….
The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation…. [4]
The article reports that the French ambassador, while prefacing his remarks with kind words for the resolution, pointed out that “human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems.” [5]
With all due respect Mr. President: the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest. And capitulation is not leadership. It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms. [6]
Fortunately, the United States voted against the 2010 UN resolution on “defamation of religion,” promoted by the 57-nation OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference).
The non-binding resolution did pass 20-17 in the UN Human Rights Commission, with eight nations abstaining.
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that any effort that could lead to the criminalization of the defamation of religion is ‘a false solution, that exchanges one wrong for another….’” [7] An accurate comment.
Atheists were concerned over the resolution, since they want to be free to criticize religion and don’t want government surveillance and control over religious or anti-religious views. [8] Under the resolution, if implemented, any negative comments about a religion could be regarded as offensive.
What seems to be desired by the proponents of this resolution is something like Canada’s ill-named “Human Rights Commission,” which has resulted in taxpayer-funded prosecutions simply on someone’s complaint of being offended. Defendants are given no legal help, and lack the rights of a criminal defendant, yet are subject to heavy fines, lifetime speech bans, etc., and truth is no defense. More information here.
The proponents want to get this resolution added to international law, so that any criticism of Islam can be criminalized. We should not move any further in that direction, but Obama is a little too inclined to follow the lead of Britain and Canada.
The unstated secret is that going to great lengths to avoid associating terrorism with Islam, and further, also making strong efforts to accommodate Muslim demands, is finally based on fear. Some Muslims have shown that they are willing to react violently when they perceive an insult. Everyone is supposed to understand this and agree that it’s justified. But it isn’t. It’s a culture clash of sorts, but freedoms deserves protection and illegal violence deserves punishment.
I certainly advocate respecting, not insulting religions, but that leaves room for criticism, even strong criticism. I advocate protecting the God-given right to free speech, which includes saying or printing things some might find offensive. If ideas have merit, they don’t need the government to protect them from competition, and if not, they don’t need the government to suppress them.
Punish illegal actions, not opinions and words. When words are suppressed, thought is impaired, as Big Brother knew well. The deterioration of language is a significant aspect of the “dumbing down” phenomenon of recent decades. And without free exchange of ideas, we don’t know who thinks what, or how to truly engage in debate or discussion.
“I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious.” – Joe Klein of Time [1] See video here.
This theme has been taken up by some liberal websites, such as alternet.org. Sara Robinson writes,
Openly advocating acts of sedition has become the conservatives' main political stock in trade over the past year… You hear it everywhere from Rush to Glenn to Michelle Malkin to Michelle Bachman. Everybody on the right is now roundly convinced that the fairly-elected President of the United States isn't even a citizen. He's a Muslim, and thus in treasonous league with terrorists. The main goal of his administration is to turn the country over to the One World Government. He's a socialist. He's a fascist. All of these are direct attacks on Obama's fundamental legitimacy and authority to lead the country -- and thus a deliberate incitement to revolt against his administration. [2]
Robinson leads her piece with a paragraph about the Hutaree militia group, [3] but this is not really part of the issue at hand, because this group is not right-wing, and certainly not Christian. They are a lunatic-fringe group accused of a truly seditious murder plot.
Accusing President Obama of not being a citizen and being a Muslim? I don’t think we’re hearing that from the most popular conservative commentators. Although the President has refused to produce a birth certificate, the issue is hardly worth pursuing at this point. Yes, he is a socialist, and yes he is a fascist. If you like socialism and fascism, he’s your guy. He daily demonstrates his disdain for and willingness to severely violate the U.S. Constitution. If there’s any problem with his ability to govern, it’s not because of conservative critics, it’s because of his own lack of knowledge and skill, or else a lack of desire to govern by the Constitution.
This new twist is in addition to the Administration’s constant whining and blaming George W. Bush for everything. If they’re going to be such cry-babies, they shouldn’t be too shocked if people criticize them for it.
Robinson goes on to note that some protesters have carried guns with them to protests, in places where that is legal. [4] They are within their legal rights. If the liberals want to read something into that, it’s their problem. It should be noted, that while we hear of a few fringe incidents of threats against liberals, the actual political violence in America comes mainly from the left, such as the attack on the Jindal aide Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend Joseph Brown. Barack knows something of political violence from his close association with his friend Bill Ayers. He knows a good bit about racism and anti-Semitism from his good friend and mentor Pastor Jeremiah Wright, the white-hating, Jew-hating so-called Christian preacher. It is not surprising that he is distancing himself from our traditional strong ally Israel to curry favor with Muslim leaders.
ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS
As our title suggests, this tactic of using accusations of sedition against opponents by the party in power is nothing new. The Federalist Party did it in the late 1790’s with the Alien and Sedition Acts. The law virtually prohibited any criticism of the government or the President (Federalist John Adams). Thomas Jefferson’s response was, among other things, to write the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, affirming the states’ ability to nullify federal laws considered unconstitutional. Madison’s Virginia Resolutions did much the same thing.
WILSON AND WORLD WAR I ERA
As Woodrow Wilson got America into World War I, there was another crackdown on “sedition,” which, in the government’s view, was saying, or printing, anything the government might not like. In addition to valid laws against espionage and treason, the new laws made it a crime to criticize the government or the war effort. (How well would that have gone over in the Vietnam War era?)
Harvard Law Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr. published his Freedom of Speech in 1920 and gave accounts of states’ sedition laws, such as :
These statutes and regulations are, for the most part, different from the normal criminal law in three ways: (1) They label opinions as objectionable and punish them for their own sake because of supposedly bad tendencies without any consideration of the probability of criminal acts; (2) they impose severe penalties for the advocacy of small offenses as much as for serious crimes; (3) they establish a practical censorship of the press ex post facto. [5]
Chafee states that such laws are constitutional insofar as they are used to meet a “clear and present danger,” but in general, the cases in which they were used fell short of that standard, such as criminalizing ipso facto a person’s membership in certain organizations. [6]
Chafee, in an appendix, gives the text of the federal law of 1918, and lists cases involving freedom of speech. Numerous cases, with punishments up to 20 years are listed. Through 1919, there had been cases involving “language intended to defame the flag,” “language urging curtailment of production of war materials,” “language intended to defame form of government,” etc. [7]
After noting that the longest term for sedition in England under George III was four years, the severity of punishment under the law is described by Chafee as follows:
Our judges have condemned at least eleven persons to prison for ten years, six for fifteen years, and twenty-four for twenty years. Judge Van Valkenburgh summed up the facts with appalling correctness in view of the virtual life terms imposed under the Espionage Act, when he said that freedom of speech means the protection of “criticism which is made friendly to the government, friendly to the war, friendly to the policies of the government. [8]
Chafee risked losing his job at Harvard, being criticized for his free-speech views. Answers.com recognizes him as “the father of modern free speech law in the United States.” [9]
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who used Chafee’s work in his Supreme Court opinions regarding free speech, said to him “You did a man’s job. The persecution will make it more productive. By such follies is liberty made to grow; for the love of it is re-awakened.” [10]
WHERE WILL THIS LEAD?
Perhaps the Obama Administration will use Mr. Klein’s and similar statements as a trial balloon for possible legislation to limit free speech in opposing government policies. There have been some voices in favor of a return to the “Fairness Doctrine” in some form, which would limit freedom of speech. The laws struck down in the Citizens United Supreme Court case were unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of speech, and Obama wants legislation to counteract that decision. So restricting freedom of speech is not exactly out of the question in recent government thinking. The current Administration has the least respect for the Constitution of any since Wilson. They prove this day in and day out.
The Democrats’ typical response to effective opposition is: rather than engage on the issues, try to silence the opponent, try to destroy him or her in the court of public opinion, and, if possible, criminalize him or her.
Klein, Matthews, and other hypocrites of their ilk probably think no one remembers the G. W. Bush Administration and the abuse that was heaped upon the President, or the often-violent anti-Vietnam War demonstrations of the 1960’s. The Tea Party rallies have been energetic but not violent, unlike many leftist demonstrations.
Mr. Obama said he was “amused” by the tax day Tea Party rallies. What the left doesn’t seem to care about is that the Tea Party speaks for the majority of Americans, and at least 70 percent of Americans don’t trust the government and in fact are angry about government policies. The problem is not critics, the problem is a government that stubbornly governs against the clearly-expressed will of the people, and is bringing about destructive results both as to freedom and the economy. I hope the Republican Party will be the “Party of Hell, No!” and stop Obama’s socialist-fascist agenda to the greatest extent possible under the rules of Congress. I doubt that Obama will be amused by the election results in 2010 and 2012. Perhaps that’s why he has to push his widely and deeply disliked policies so urgently.
“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,” -- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Americans generally believe that, as our Declaration of Independence says, our rights come from God. Not government. Governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
It’s always surprising to me to read about how some supposedly “free world” countries are so infested with political correctness that they ban or punish expression via speech, the press, or media that in America would hardly do more than raise an eyebrow, or even if it did, there would be no legal attempt to stop or punish it.
I say no legal attempt, but, in a high-profile instance, possibly there would be calls for someone to apologize, resign, be fired or whatever. America has more than its share of concern with “political correctness.” But up to now, it’s unlikely the offender would be in danger of jail time or fines. In fact, some of the most awful, distasteful, and disgusting, not to mention false, stuff publicly said and published and broadcast raises hardly any protest.
My own respect for the First Amendment is only enhanced when I hear of how a genius like the provost of the University of Ottawa threatened Ann Coulter with possible criminal prosecution in connection with her scheduled speech, before she even got near the school. A raucous demonstration (riot?) led police to cancel the speech. The protesters didn’t want Ann to be spreading “hate speech,” but their own demonstrations constituted “hate speech” if anything does. Or maybe these weren’t students at all, but a convention of loudmouths whose meeting just happened to coincide with Ms. Coulter’s scheduled speech. I like her column that appeared just after the incident.
Dear old Canada also gave some grief to Mark Steyn via their so-called “Human Rights Commission,” which seems to be more of an anti-rights commission. A magazine published an excerpt from Steyn’s excellent book America Alone, which unfortunately was not filled with praise toward Muslims, so some people complained. I think he escaped any serious punishment, but just the idea that he would need to answer such a complaint strikes me as ridiculous.
This is all Orwellian “thought-crime” and is the underlying idea for “hate crimes.” “Hate crimes” are based on the theory that if someone committed a crime motivated by “hate” toward some politically favored group, it’s somehow worse than if it was motivated by something else. Just common sense and constitutional principle would require that offenders be punished for what they did, not what they thought. Using motive to demonstrate guilt of a crime is quite different from punishing someone for having a certain motive. Just more liberal nonsense.
An article at American Renaissance, points out Britain’s recent affinity with thought-crime:
Britain appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely….
The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years’ prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the “global baggage of empire” was linked to soccer violence by “racist and xenophobic white males”. He claimed the English “propensity for violence” was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were “potentially very aggressive”…
Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said at a rally against the Government’s anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: “If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter saying no charges would be pressed, but that: “If further evidence comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will seek to initiate proceedings.” It took him five years to clear his name. [1]
Is Ingsoc coming to England?
From Reuters, quoted by Scarlett Crusader: “Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol [Brigitte Bardot] a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was “destroying our country and imposing its acts.” (Emphasis apparently added.) [2] Bardot has been prosecuted and fined several times for remarks that would hardly incite anything, although some extremists might use them as an excuse for something.
And at present the blog-publicized, but (U.S.) media-ignored trial of Geert Wilders of the Netherlands represents another thought-crime trial. To have and express a certain opinion is, in America, constitutionally protected. While Mr. Wilders’ opinions that I’ve read don’t seem extreme, though some view them as unfavorable, no American politician would face charges for saying any such thing in the U.S. Our constitution protects freedom of speech even if other people find it demeaning, insulting, erroneous, or whatever, as long as it stops short of defaming an individual or directly inciting violence. For public figures, there is a much looser standard as to what may be said about them than for others.
I am not anti-Muslim, anti-British, anti-Canadian, anti-French, or anti-Dutch, but I am anti-tyranny. I am saddened to see freedom tossed aside to placate any special interest or political group. All should be equally free to peacefully express their opinions.
I have certainly criticized some things people have said (see my previous article as an example), but I have not questioned their right to say it. About the only exception that I can think of today would be the “Westboro Baptist Church” and their vicious demonstrations at military funerals. Their guilt is not in what they said (although it’s evil, it still would be allowed in a different forum), but in the emotional distress they intentionally inflict on families and others burying their loved ones and mourning their deaths. A Supreme Court case is pending. As a Baptist, I can assure you that what they are doing has nothing whatsoever to do with fulfilling the Christian faith, Baptist or otherwise.
The items mentioned above illustrate not only the ease with which free speech (and freedom in general) can be lost, but also the putrid rot of political correctness. I’m about to come to the conclusion that the United States of America is one of the very few truly free countries left. That is one reason, among many, that Americans dread and detest any suggestion of one-worldism or anything like that. But the U.S. is not without problems: There are more efforts than ever to suppress religious expression, for example, despite its First Amendment protection. More on that in another article.
But it seems the U.S. is one of the few countries that still values individual freedom and opportunity and does not always pigeon-hole people into some convenient group.
I say that cautiously, because our present government is moving ominously in the direction of enforced political correctness. They just haven’t yet figured out an easy way around the First Amendment. Too bad it’s unique to America.
Fox Stands Out Among News Outlets In a CNN interview, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn pointed out that Fox News story selection differed significantly from that of CNN, the major broadcast networks and other cable channels. This was done in order to support her contention that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization, but a de facto arm of the Republican Party.
Anyone who’s been paying attention since Barack Obama became a candidate for president could hardly miss the fact that the mainstream media has protected, promoted, covered for, and even idolized him. This is scarcely debatable. Fox News has not. Their coverage of Obama and political stories has differed from the others because they wanted to cover items the others either did not cover or did so in such a manner as to put a positive spin on items that might be seen as critical of Obama, and minimize the airtime devoted to such items.
Fox News doesn’t get much respect from the White House, or mainstream media outlets, because (1) they are not invested in the political success of Obama or his opponents, and (2) they do not ridicule people who have a conservative viewpoint. Conservative opposition to Obama is viewed by the MSM as “divisive,” and basically ill-informed and in need of guidance from themselves.
Political Coverage In political things Obama-related, Fox is representative of actual journalism, while political journalism in the mainstream media has seemingly become dormant. It is Fox that reported adequately on Obama’s connections with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and other radicals. Not that the others didn’t report, but they made it clear that there was no cause for concern, in their view; similarly with Obama’s radical, Marxist and Marxist-leaning “czars” who don’t mind exerting their power to take away normal freedoms – such as the right of a business to pay their employees as they have agreed to. Fox reported these items in their news segments, and they were fairly heavily covered in Fox’s opinion shows with Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, etc.
On the issue of “health care reform,” for example, Fox News gave attention to the fact that many Americans oppose Obamacare, covering the tea parties, town halls and march on Washington. The MSM outlets devoted much less airtime and attention to these phenomena and gave more emphasis to their “divisive” and occasionally unruly aspects. Nor did Fox neglect critics of the events or controversies involving them. As for the issue itself, the MSM seems to start with the premise that socialized healthcare is a good idea for America, while most Americans won’t accept this without strong persuasion.
The Role of the Media Media, by and large should have a thorough understanding and a deep appreciation for our Constitution, particularly the First Amendment protections. Traditionally, newspapers and other media have served as a watchdog over government abuses and corruption, and an advocate and protector of the people. Today, this role is much more often fulfilled in consumer matters and local politics than national political matters.
From an August 2000 article at the Australian Press Council website: “Fleet Street [1] genius Sol Chandler put it this way: ‘The oldest rule of journalism, and the most forgotten, is to tell the customers what is really going on.’ If it is forgotten, it is because exposure journalism is quite impossible for all but the most financially secure media organisations.
“The reasons lie in the Eighteenth Century. Modern journalism, invented by Defoe in 1704, became what [Press Historian Francis] Williams calls ‘a weapon of freedom, a sword in the hands of those fighting old or new tyrannies, the one indispensable piece of ordnance in the armoury of democracy….’
“[Eighteenth Century British] Judges sent many honest soldiers for truth to prison during the long (and largely unsuccessful) struggle for free speech and democracy. Williams says the privations they endured impose the same obligations on all who come after: to report honestly, to comment fearlessly, and to hold fast to independence.” [2]
This is pointed out only to illustrate that free-press journalism has a rich heritage of an international struggle for freedom that imposes serious responsibilities.
Point and Counterpoint The White House has excluded Fox News from some events and has hinted at further steps along this line. News organizations have sometimes been known to go out of their way to avoid offending their government sources, so as to preserve access. But what’s the point of having access if you can’t freely report the facts? But presumably, Fox won’t be denied access, they’ll simply find that the White House will “hit back” (twice as hard?). This does not appear to frighten Fox.
To their credit, Fox has responded appropriately (I think) to the criticism. Chris Wallace called the White House group a bunch of “crybabies,” and that got under their skin even further. To which I say, in the words of Harry Truman, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”
Two sides of the issue, first from Anita Dunn on CNN, then Neil Cavuto on Fox:
Some Observations A few things are clear from this:
1. Barack Obama and his White House staff are thin-skinned.
2. Obama’s staff includes people like Dunn and “czars” who are admirers of Communist leaders like Mao Tse-Tung and Marxists like Hugo Chavez, dictators who have not hesitated to shut down media outlets that disagreed with them. Presumably Obama shares some of these characteristics. Liberals often have not hesitated to go after critics and try to silence them, rather than engage on issues with them. We saw this in some of the town hall meetings in August. We have heard in the pronouncements of people like the FCC’s “Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd. What stands between us and the loss our freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not so much the ethics of government as the First Amendment itself. And these days, that may not be entirely secure.
3. The warning about investigative journalism needing to be backed by financial resources is very appropriate today. Fox News has a billionaire owner. One hopes he will not be moved to change Fox News on account of White House pressure. If Fox stays in the White House crosshairs, they might expect some form of further retaliation.
Fox News has practiced actual journalism in both news reporting and opinion that deserves respect. For not being coddlers of the president, they are on his bad list.
[1] Formerly known as the home of the British press, though that is not the case nowadays.
President Barack Obama and Co. are demonstrating the weakness of their position on health care/health insurance “reform” in several ways:
1. They have been mobilizing union thugs and ACORN members to intimidate citizens who might embarrass officials by stating concerns or asking questions at town hall meetings. (See my article “Gangster Government II – Obama Thugs.”)
2. They are failing to answer citizens’ concerns about the health care plan. The following video shows a citizen speaking to Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) at the Lebanon, PA town hall meeting on 08/11/09. The man speaks calmly, clearly, and respectfully about the objections people have about the plan.
The senator has no clear answer to any of the objections, just a vague “commitment” to work on the problems without stirring up turmoil. If the House bill prevails, and the senator supports it, this cannot be met.
2. They are blaming Fox News and cable channels for stirring up opposition to their plan, and they are otherwise fighting free speech on this issue, through their website which invites people to report on others who disagree with the plan. What they are doing with this website is illegal on several levels. If they are not keeping information, they are breaking the law that requires White House communications to be archived. If they are keeping the information they are breaking another law. See Jim Malmberg’s BloggersBase article “The Healthcare Gestapo” for a discussion of this. [1]
3. They are, in effect, calling protesters Nazis and brownshirts, when in fact the Administration has the brownshirts working for them. (See #1)
4. Obama and his people are complaining that protesting citizens are “organized,” when they are the ones doing the great amount of organizing.
“Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Ky., told ‘FOX News Sunday’ that it’s not clear who’s organized and who’s not but that Democrats’ efforts to ‘demonize’ the protesters reflect weak spots in the substance of their plan. “ ‘I think attacking citizens in our country for expressing their opinions about an issue of this magnitude may indicate some weakness in their position on the merits,’ McConnell said. ‘And I also think it’s particularly absurd for the Democrats, who have over an $8 million e-mail list over at the DNC called Organize America, to be criticizing citizens for being organized.’” [2]
5. The president can’t clearly explain what the plan is. Congressmen don’t seem to know quite what it is either. Is it the House bill or something else? How can they claim that people are spreading “disinformation” when no one seems to have the “real” information, if it isn’t the House bill?
6. They can’t seem to accept the reality that most American voters are against their plan and most are satisfied with their current coverage. They are in a political battle against the majority of the American people.
A Fox News poll of 900 registered voters, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. by telephone, shows that 34 percent favor the Obama plan and 49 percent oppose it. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent The poll also shows that 52 percent believe the outrage shown in the town hall meetings is genuine, not the result of fake mobs or planted protesters. “Moreover, nearly half of Americans feel ‘frightened’ (31 percent) or ‘angry’ (17 percent)…. And an overwhelming 92 percent majority says members of Congress should be required to read and understand legislation before voting, ‘even if the bill is thousands of pages long.’” [3]
They also believe (53 percent) that the horror stories they hear about government health care in foreign countries could happen here under the Obama plan. And they would overwhelmingly prefer to receive medical treatment in the U.S. instead of Canada. [4]
7. The president’s claims that the AARP supports their efforts leaves many elderly people feeling a true sense of betrayal by that organization.
While people generally want to help the uninsured to get coverage, they are unwilling to pay high taxes and face the loss of their own coverage and get government-rationed care to accomplish this.
Rush Limbaugh
