Posted by
Tzimisce on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:07:17 PM
Monday of this week was the 210th anniversary of the Sedition Act. One part of the Act stated that it would be illegal for "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the US government. This made it awful convenient for the people in charge to silence their opposition. It was one of the first Congressional attacks on Free Speech and Press in our republic.
But what was controversial in 1798 gets a lukewarm reception in 2008. For one of the first times in our history, politicians (largely from the Left Wing) are not only asserting that they can regulate speech but that it is good to do so. Everything from the “Fairness Doctrine” to “Campaign Finance Reform” is acceptable by libs in the modern day.
But as awful as all these things are, there is something much worse going on. Namely leftists will openly and proudly tell you that they plan on silencing their political enemies. “The Fairness Doctrine” originally applied to any broadcast using public airwaves. As envisioned in 2008, it will only target radio. Campus speech codes are solely to protect minority students.
And the insane arguments in favor of these things often focus on the “greater good”. Drawings of the Prophet Mohammed are to be banned lest Muslims riot (absolving Muslim of any responsibility when they riot.) The Fairness Doctrine is supposed to be an attempt to bring “balance” to issues on public airwaves. Campus speech codes are to protect easily offended minorities.
But “greater good” arguments don’t change that it is fact that these things are all illegal under the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”
-First Amendment, US Constitution
Unless there is a Constitutional amendment put in place, these laws should be thrown out.
This is usually where libs take on their holier than thou glow as they look down uponst me and lecture that they’re all in favor of free speech, but this and that don’t qualify because you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. This always leaves me wondering how someone so smart can’t see the difference between someone saying something they know is false, will cause a panic and leaves no time to verify versus a discussion of issues of the day. I would expect great intellectual think tanks to know the difference between the two. Since libs say they can’t, the only conclusions I can come too is their either stupid, crazy or know that they’re full of crap, but are lying to everyone so as to silence their rivals.
Unfortunately though, there are enough of these people asserting their stupidity that it is starting to take root in some places. And predictably, what started out as attempts to bring “civility”, “fairness” and “sensitivity” to debate is starting to reach an insane level as it always does. Dallas County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield recently called his county’s Central Collections Office a “black hole” to the umbrage of his (black) Fellow Commissioner John Wiley Price. (I can’t believe someone in the year 2008 doesn’t know what a black hole is.) An even more recent example is the next cover of the ‘New Yorker’ magazine featuring Obama the Muslim. The outrage was fast and furious.
Naturally there are no similar protections for Conservative politicians or issues. It’s okay to throw Oreo cookies at Michael Steele. It’s okay for ‘Rolling Stone’ to make a cover of John McCain in a tiny cage being tortured by Viet Cong.
The rules never apply to libs themselves. That’s why TV and college professors won’t be covered by the Fairness Doctrine, even though they also use public property to transmit their messages. And thus the double standards abound. Suggesting that Obama is a Muslim is out of bounds, racist, offensive and libelous. Suggesting that Bush not only knew of, but helped destroy the twin towers on 9-11 is not only patriotic but worth investigating (despite zero evidence).
Bringing “civility” or “balance” to the arena of public ideas isn’t the government’s business. The founders knew this and that’s why they implemented the first amendment. Censorship and speech laws are too easy for political leaders to abuse and in the places where they implemented their rules, the abuse is already leaking out.
If you give these people your freedom, they’ll take it – and they’ll be smiling when they do.