Posted on 01/15/2007 5:32:44 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Less than two weeks after Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, Accuracy in Media has exposed a plan by congressional liberals to use the federal government to silence conservative voices in the media.
Reporting from a so-called National Conference on Media Reform, organized by "progressive" activists, AIM editor Cliff Kincaid has revealed, in an exclusive report now available on the AIM web site (http://www.aim.org), that liberals in the House and Senate intend to push legislation giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to monitor and restrict what conservatives in the media say and how they say it.
Kincaid quotes Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey (news, bio, voting record) (D-N.Y.) as saying that he wants to put an end to the influence of conservative media personalities he finds to be "neo-fascist" and "neo-con." Their legislative vehicle is revival of a "fairness doctrine" giving FCC bureaucrats the ability to grant liberal activists "equal access" to conservative programs on radio and television. Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, told the conference he would push such a measure in the Senate.
Kincaid calls the approach "authoritarian" and a threat to freedom of speech in the U.S.
In his Special Report on the conference, which featured Bill Moyers and Jesse Jackson and Hollywood celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Kincaid said that the event "turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more 'progressive' voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives."
At the same time, Kincaid noted that one conference speaker, freshman Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), pledged to protect or even increase taxpayer funding for public broadcasting that he admits is on the "left hand side of the dial."
Kincaid documents funding for the organizers of the conference from George Soros, who has made billions of dollars from secretive financial transactions, and notes evidence that participants were so far to the left that Senator Hillary Clinton was considered by them to be "too conservative." Kincaid also documents the active involvement in the conference by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Accuracy in Media (AIM), founded in 1969, is America's oldest media watchdog organization. For more information, please visit http://www.aim.org.
SOURCE Accuracy in Media
If they think Conservatives are angry now they ain't seen nothing yet!
Rush Limbaugh has been warning about this!
So has Neal Boortz!
It would have to overcome a Republican filibuster and a Bush veto and then get 2/3rds of Congress to override.
It sounds scary, but it's not going to happen in the next two years for sure.
They are afraid of war. If you want a war lefties, bring it on.
Excellent reporting. Too bad they had to use America's premier media whoring outfit, USNewswire.
Nothing.
You mean we won't be able to denounce liberals for the traitorous, cowardly, corrupt, ignorant, lazy, bureaucracy-loving, worthless b$stards that they are? Well, sh$t!
Great idea to let the Democrats take the majority!! That'll teach us all a lesson. /sarc
Careful. That's what many said about McCain-Feingold too.
...and watch out: they'll be coming after the Internet next.
Kas ping
Hinchey is a worthless little loudmouth creep full of conspiracy fantasies. O'Reilly and Hannity play him like a cheap fiddle whenever he shows up. Somebody just needs to wad him up and throw him away.
Anyway, not even Nazi Pelosi is going to bite on this one, IMHO.
At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I do believe that such a move would be looked back upon years in the future as the beginning of the second civil war in this country. I don't think this is going to happen, but it's ironic that the crowd that constantly points fingers at others for being fascists wants to trash freedom of speech. These people are scary. They are no less zealots than the Bin Laden crowd. Seriously.
Point well taken, but I think I recall it being a given that it would pass, as a token to McCain.
Then we all expected Bush to veto it, but he signed it expecting the Supreme Court to take the heat for striking down parts of it.
Hopefully we've all learned our lessons.
Nor will you here anything from those worthless bastards. I'm afraid that we're on our own guys.
They already are. Pelosi wants all "grassroots" organizations that communicate with 500 or more people to register with the Congress, file financials quaterly, and to report separately on each and every issue they advocate. Unions, corporations, etc, exempted, of course.
That was my thought exactly! No way would Conservatves stand for this. Can you say "Fire Storm," boys and girls!
http://vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSPACE2/WebPublish/controller.aspx?SiteName=FOTF&Definition=Home&XSL=Home&SV_Section=Home
Do something about it here.
Anytime you see the word "progressive" just think of a
Communist scheme that hasn't worked and has brought misery to millions.
Better than hope, it's up to us to remind our elected congress critters. Loud and often.
"Pelosi wants all "grassroots" organizations that communicate with 500 or more people to register with the Congress, file financials quaterly, and to report separately on each and every issue they advocate. Unions, corporations, etc, exempted, of course."
And I want full disclosure of all the cosmetic surgeries and Botox used by Nancy, Hillary and the rest of that crowd.
"It would have to overcome a Republican filibuster and a Bush veto and then get 2/3rds of Congress to override.
It sounds scary, but it's not going to happen in the next two years for sure."
And even if there is a Democratic President and it gets past Congress and the White House, it will be shot stone dead by the Supreme Court. Good luck getting past THAT!
This is grandstanding. Conservative radio proponents would fight it on the grounds that the current arrangement is, in fact, fair; since libs control the major media. The last thing the left wants is a federal court case; or Congressional hearings, for that matter; that would focus on the transparent figleaf of MSM "objectivity."
The feds were suprised at the militias organizing all over the US after Waco...they haven't seen anything if they start this crap.
Atlas Shrugged!
Gunner
Cowards and bullies. Bring it on!
William P. Barr, executive vice president and general counsel for Verizon and former U.S. Attorney General, will present the Center on Law and Information Policy’s inaugural Law and Information Society Lecture on Tuesday, Jan. 16 [e-mail didn't say what time], in the McNally Amphitheatre [inside the law library, southwest corner of Columbus and West 62nd Street], at the Lincoln Center campus. [Free and open to the public.] Barr served as attorney general under former President George H. Bush from 1991 to 1993.
Barr will discuss the new broadband infrastructure that Verizon and others are deploying and recent proposals to regulate broadband services (often discussed as “net neutrality” regulation). These proposals will be the focus of much debate when the 110th Congress considers Internet regulations.
The Center on Law and Information Policy (CLIP) was founded at the Fordham Law School to make significant contributions to the development of law and policy for the information economy and to teach the next generation of leaders. The center brings together scholars, the bar, the business community, technology experts, the policy community, students, and the public to address and assess policies and solutions for cutting-edge issues that affect the evolution of the information economy.
Under the leadership of Joel Reidenberg, J.D., professor of law, CLIP focuses on five key areas: law and policy relating to the regulation of information and public values; law and policy for innovation and knowledge creation; technology, privacy, and security; technology and governance; and the protection of intellectual property and information assets.
Contact: Victor M. Inzunza
(212) 636-7576
inzunza@fordham.edu
And yet some still wonder why these spineless do-nothings were unable to muster sufficient support from the conservative base to stave off the 2006 midterm election disaster.
So far, they seemed to have learned nothing from that experience.
-PJ
Why should the GOP leadership care when the voters don't seem to.
"Great idea to let the Democrats take the majority!! That'll teach us all a lesson. /sarc"
Hello.
Who is this message being addressed to? Is it to conservatives/Republicans (who turned out in normal midterm election numbers and voted over 90% Republican), or to swing voters (who shifted from evenly balanced to almost 60% Democrat, mainly on the issues of the war and congressional corruption)?
Thanks.
The arrogant belief that this country wants even harder right Presidential candidates is seriously misguided. It is equally wrong to assume that the reason we lost in '06, is because of those 'RINOS' and Bush, who are not conservative enough. If this unhealthy trend continues, those 'true' conservatives will have a rude awakening coming in '08.
This electorate is now controlled by the centrists, independents and moderates. The choice to keep selecting these unelectable candidates like Cox, Hunter or whom ever else they come up with will insure our loss in '08.
The Democrats are already way in the lead with promoting their front runners, while this party is still arguing about who is the most conservative regardless of their electability. The wasted months of indecision ahead will prove to be our greatest enemy. We all know the outcome if we lose the Presidency, there will be no second chances to take it back later. The damage will be too severe.
I could have sworn you had already told me that in Post 17.
No, wait. They already said this about us. I'm confused. Just which way IS that wind a blowin'?
I don't think so. I believe that the courts were about to end the old "Fairness Doctrine" arguing that modern media give all views a fair airing. Reagan ended the old "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987.
IMO what is a danger is the argument of a University of Chicago employee in his book, Republic.com.
The author argued that depending solely upon the narrow views of just one side of the argument (i.e., the conservative view, according to his interviews I heard) was a danger to our democracy. Government should force those people to read / hear / see other views. I believe he has backed off from literally forcing people.
The book was praised in the NY Times and was a best seller at some universities.
IOW, we can keep talk radio and the Internet as is but we may have to prove that we considered alternate views. Perhaps there will be daily quizzes?
I lived through the decades of the old "Fairness Doctrine."
We cannot permit curtailment of our free speech again! It's been defended with blood against enemies. We can do no less. Our free speech, their blood.
They're totalitarians. They won't be happy until everyone is compelled to agree with them.
"I feel a chill wind blowing across America...
No, wait. They already said this about us."
To a liberal, any idea they're uncomfortable with is a chill wind.
"They are afraid of war. If you want a war lefties, bring it on".
...in all seriousness, what could/would this country do if the lefties were actually able to stifle free speech on "conservative" radio? What can we, as a people do? Other than vote in 2008 etc.?
The Supreme Court will be the best place to define or validate what the Democrats are attempting to do and in the end result, strike down the law as unconstitutional.
If there is one thing going for us, it is that ideal.
I guess everybody has had some sort of shot, vaccination or blood-draw. This whole political scene reminds me of some shots I've had in the past. When the needle was stuck in quickly and surely the pain and discomfort was usually less than a slow, leisurely push.
Politically, we've been getting the slow needle for more years than I like to think about. We've cried, we've fussed, we've sworn up and down we'd do something about it... soon. Well, that slow needle is almost all the way in and we're beginning to understand that it isn't going to be pulled out anytime soon. It's gonna get worse before it gets better too. There will be small pockets of open rebellion and government - whether it has an 'R' or a 'D' by it - will move to crush it quickly and ruthlessly.
As is always the case when tyrants seek to keep their boot on the neck of their subjects, there will always be a few to keep the flames fanned.
BLOAT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.