Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------
Want to hear about my San Diego trip? Read it here.
-------------------------------------------------------
"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 United States Constitution.
Simple language, written by giants of men. Especially this part: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," So, why, oh why, is there a need for Congressional Democrats to re-create "The Fairness Doctrine"
As a partisan, I agree that there should be a battle of ideas. Fight in the papers (untouched by the Doctrine), fight on the Blogs (still untouched by the Doctrine), fight on television (also untouched by the Doctrine) and fight in person. Be civil when you're done, but argue the point. If the doctrine becomes law, it shuts down debate, not opens it up. Again, Congress abridging speech.
Recently, MSNBC found television and print reporters give money to Democrats (partisans, PAC's, and candidates) 3 to 1. Play the role of a Republican candidate, not only are you facing your Democratic opponent, but also a hostile member of the press. Reverse it, and the Democrats have an ally writing their press releases. I'm sorry, but I remember the election of 1992. Bush pere could do nothing right according to the press.
By the way, Stephanopoulis worked for President Clinton (D-AK); Russert worked for Governor Cuomo (D-NY). Should I really go further with that idea? As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't believe in conspiracies, but I do believe some areas of our society suffer from "Group think" The press is one area that suffers from it -- hence the rise of the Blogs and Fox News.
Again, why the Doctrine? Senator Inhofe (R-OK) was in a "Senators Only" elevator when he heard this conversation between Sen. Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Boxer (D-CA). The battle of ideas must be fought cleanly. Using the power of the State to shut down any of the debate, is un-constitutional (Again, Congress abridging speech). Think on this:
First they came for Don Imus,
But I was not an Imus fan,
Then they came for talk radio hosts,
But I don't care for talk radio hosts,
Then they came for the Bloggers,
But no one spoke for me....
The Democratic Party claims to be for "Free Speech." Here is a test for every Liberal Blogger , can you defend speech of someone you don't like? I can and I have. Should Congress abridge Free Speech Rights for those you don't like? Who will speak when it is your turn?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
1 comment:
Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.
There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.
Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.
Write! History will remember your words!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
Please don't take anything that Hillary Clinton does as an example of liberalism. She is an authoritarian first and foremost. If she's the democratic nominee, I'll probably have to sit this election out.
ReplyDeleteAs for radio, I detest what is said on right wing talk radio, but of course I would defend their right to say it. That said, I don't have a problem with stations on the public airwaves being obliged to offer equal time to opposing viewpoints because the public owns those airwaves. And I don't see that as taking away anybody's freedom whatsoever.
If these broadcasters want to do and say whatever they want without any kind of government interference, they should follow the lead of the King of All Media and get themselves onto satellite radio which as a subscription-based service is out of the clutches of the FCC. That's why print media and cable tv were never part of the fairness doctrine.