The mask is coming off.
Liberals don’t believe in free speech, but they do believe in forcing their beliefs on others. After the fairness doctrine it may be necessary to begin “re-education” for all those who are unable to free themselves from their misinformed, “extreme views.”
Feinstein might push for fairness doctrine
WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) — U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she is “looking at” the possibility of reviving the fairness doctrine for U.S. broadcasters. Feinstein, speaking on “Fox News Sunday” with Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said talk radio in particular has presented a one-sided view of immigration reform legislation being considered by the Senate.
U.S. talk radio is dominated by conservative voices.
“This is a very complicated bill,” said Feinstein. “Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.”
Feinstein said the measure before the Senate “fixes those flaws” but that doesn’t get presented on talk radio, which she said “pushes people to … extreme views without a lot of information.”
Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was “looking at it.”
“I remember when there was a fairness doctrine,” she said, “and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.“ ~upi.com
This is a perfect example of liberal policy formation: “There’s an overbearing and unnecessary government solution to every problem that doesn’t exist.”
If, “most people don’t know what’s in this bill,” as Feinstein claims, whose fault is that exactly? Talk radio or the elite who think that we are too stupid to understand the oh-so-, “complicated,” issues involved in their precious legislation. (That’s a rhetorical question which doesn’t necessarily need a question mark.)
What part of the first amendment do these people understand? From McCain-Feingold to the Fairness Doctrine to proposed FEC regulation of blogs as political contributions, those who insist on ‘improving’ free speech and ‘enriching’ democracy seem to be engaging in Orwellian Doublespeak as all their proposals add up to less speech, more regulation, and complete redefinitions of concepts self-evident to even the dictatorships of Rome.