The self-proclaimed champions of free speech, human rights, and ‘social justice’ are busy laying the groundwork for silencing all political opposition. Yes, the hypocrisy is flagrant, indeed, painfully obvious to anyone– except, apparently, to themselves.
The liberal definition of censorship is not balanced by any means. You see, Democrats and the left view censorship as something that they cannot commit. They are the champions of free speech after all. By their definition, censorship relates only to any infringement or disagreement to liberal opinions and liberal viewpoints. When conservatives refute liberal ideology that is the definition of censorship. When liberals attempt to pass laws and use the government to silence conservatives it’s called ‘fairness’ and done in the name of combating ‘hate speech’.
The Fairness Doctrine is a blatant vehicle for suppressing and regulating conservative political speech on all broadcast media. It is yet another example of the hypocrisy of liberalism which champions the cause of terrorists, demonizes America, and then claims to be defenders of the good.
The latest assault on the integrity of free speech is being perpetrated by Democrats in Congress who are thinking that they’ve found a loophole in their self-appointed role as champions of free speech. They appear to believe that labeling conservative speech as, “messages of bigotry or hatred, creating a climate of fear and inciting individuals to commit hate crimes,” will then allow them to silence and infringe the speech of their political foes.
But, according to a release from the commitee issued Monday, they also said they are also “particularly” interested in studying “uses by broadcast facilites licensed on behalf of the public by the FCC, and whether such uses convey messages of bigotry or hatred, creating a climate of fear and inciting individuals to commit hate crimes.”
A committee source would not say what had engendered that particular concern about broadcasters’ conveying “messages of bigotry and hatred,” adding that it was a general query rather than targeted at any one group. But some Democrats and media activist groups have been highly critical of conservative talk radio, labeling it hate speech.
A new hate crimes bill passed the House last month that would allow law enforcement to prosecute speech that led directly to bodily injury. Some religious broadcasters are concerned the law, if passed, could prevent ministers from speaking out against homosexuality from the broadcast pulpit. The American Civil Liberties Union supported the bill, the first hate crimes bill it has been able to give its seal of approval, pointing out that the legislation protected speech and association “unless it specifically relates to a violent crime.” ~broadcastingcable.com
Yes, the same folks who routinely incite and fuel the hatred of America wish to now begin silencing the opposition with the big hammer of government with the excuse that those they disagree with politically are inciting others to ‘hate’.
The ultimate goal is, of course, to control the public debate. A free market, even the free market of ideas, is prone to failure in the minds of liberals. Leaving public opinion up to chaotic and unregulated market forces goes against everything liberals believe in. The government is obviously a better arbiter of whose opinion is closer to ‘the truth’ and how balanced the coverage is on any given show or media outlet.
Incredibly, the left argues that having a free press requires the government to mandate the balance of political opinion and viewpoints on formats where their favored liberal viewpoint is ‘underrepresented’. Nothing is said of other media outlets where often +90% of the newsroom is liberal or support Democrats. (There’s no public interest in forcing ‘balance’ in media where the imbalance is slanted in their favor after all.)
Does the government “own” free speech?
Perhaps the most insidious and empty argument justifying the left’s use of government power to regulate speech is that the airwaves are, “owned by the government.” Therefore the government not only has the right to regulate political content but an over-riding, “public-interest,” in doing so. Their arguments are hollow and deceptive to say the least.
Democrats and the left are headed in the same direction as Hugo Chavez. Indeed, many on the left are already there. The intolerance for other points of view clearly drives liberal causes like the fairness doctrine. Control of every facet of media is the long term goal here as some Progressive Democrats have admitted.
BILL MOYERS: So when the fairness doctrine went down in 1986, that was the first year you came to Congress, what was the consequence of it? What happened as a result?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: AM radio rose. It wasn’t even gradual, Bill. I mean, almost immediately. And I should point out to you that when we tried to reinstate [the fairness doctrine] again in ’93, one of the reasons we couldn’t was that Rush Limbaugh had organized this massive uprising against it, calling it “The Hush Rush Law.” Which again said that while Rush can speak and anybody that he wants to can speak on those stations, the rest of us can’t. But he aroused his listeners so that they contacted their members of Congress and killed the bill, and that’s not the first time we’ve seen that.
I don’t know if you remember, but I believe it was Massachusetts I think where they were doing seat belt law? And talk radio was against it and killed that bill. I mean we’ve seen this before.
BILL MOYERS: Well, you know some serious people, including some liberals have said that one reason Rush Limbaugh has succeeded is because he is good entertainment.
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Exactly. He doesn’t make any pretense of being a news person or even telling you the truth. He says he’s an entertainer.
BILL MOYERS: And you’re saying that kind of discourse is dominating America right now.
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Dominating America and a waste of good broadcast time and a waste of our airwaves.
BILL MOYERS: Not to the people who agree with him.
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well, they don’t hear anything else. Why would they disagree with him? ~pbs.org
The blindness. The blandness. There’s a kind of Soviet gray in her words as if she yearns for the kind of equality you get from mixing all the colors of the rainbow together… gray goop. But what is more telling is the clear hypocrisy. Free speech isn’t free if the government has to be there countering it every moment. That’s the true definition of censorship. And I’m saddened that those who call themselves liberals don’t even see it.
Representative Slaughter goes on to say that she would like to impose her views on every form of communication no matter what medium.
BILL MOYERS: Are you proposing the fairness doctrine for Fox News or MSNBC?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: You bet.
BILL MOYERS: You are?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Yes. Fairness isn’t going to hurt anybody. I just can’t imagine these people who want to fight against fairness. ~pbs.org