Of Red Tape, Jail Time and Un-Fairness

The threat to a certain type of political speech is shooting like a flaming arrow through this new Congress. First, it was grassroots “lobbying reform.” Then it was “hate crimes,” and now, talk of reinstating the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” What do these three have in common? Liberals are on a mission to silence conservatism – and the 2006 election results left them salivating to get the ball rolling.

Their first attempt in the 110th Congress was a bipartisan and seemingly innocuous “lobbying reform” bill, the very first bill the Senate introduced. But tucked away in the language of this bill was a provision that would have gagged groups like Focus on the Family Action that communicate daily with the grassroots on important legislative issues by tying us up in miles of red tape. That red tape would have made it virtually impossible to mobilize constituents in a timely manner on issues like marriage, the family or even homosexuality. Thankfully, though, grassroots activists saved grassroots activism. Focus Action put out a call to action, and constituents flooded the Hill with their concerns. In the end, both the House and the Senate were unable to pass the provisions that would have gagged grassroots groups.

Having lost that battle, liberals began round two: Operation Hate Crimes. This bill, passed by the House and pending in the Senate, makes “bias” or “hate” a federal crime. However, anyone who “induces” a federal crime (here, a “hate crime”) can also be charged under federal law. Thus, if a parishioner who listened to his pastor’s sermon on the biblical view of homosexuality later assaulted a homosexual, the parishioner could be charged with a federal “hate crime,” and his pastor could be charged federally for “inducing a hate crime.”

You might wonder, what’s the big deal behind punishing bias or motive – we already punish people for the motive behind their crime in the form of sentencing enhancements. Yes. A perpetrator’s sentence can be enhanced if his crime was, for instance, motivated by greed or jealousy. But motives of greed or jealousy are content-neutral and not protected political speech. Opposition to homosexuality, however, is a religious and political belief that falls into a class of speech that has historically been protected. Can we punish a liberal more severely because he assaulted a conservative? Of course not. Conservatism is a core political belief – as are beliefs concerning homosexuality, the family or marriage.

In essence, liberals want to use hate-crimes legislation to threaten prosecution for a protected political viewpoint they disagree with. It remains to be seen whether Operation Hate Crimes will succeed.

But just in case it doesn’t, liberals always have the Fairness Doctrine threat — their version of the whining childhood mantra, “Hey, that’s not fair!” The Fairness Doctrine, rightfully nixed in 1987 by the FCC, required radio and TV stations to offer airtime to opposing political viewpoints. But Democratic senators like Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer complain that there are too many “right-wing extremists” on talk radio.

Perhaps it was said best by Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy:

"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." The Heritage Foundation, October, 1993.

So there you have it. What liberals really mean when they say they want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” is that they want conservatives to shut up. Essentially, it would demand that conservatives air liberal viewpoints on their radio stations, knowing that those stations would likely either a) shut down rather than offer views they don’t believe in or b) refuse to discuss important controversial issues.

For example, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, radio stations airing Focus on the Family’s broadcast may be forced to give airtime to opposing views on abortion from the likes of Planned Parenthood. Rather than be forced by the government to comply, those stations might refuse to run Focus broadcasts altogether.

To sum up the liberals’ strategy so far this Congress: We’re going to tie you up in red tape. If that doesn’t work, we’re going to threaten you with criminal penalties for speaking your viewpoint, and as a last resort, we will force our political views to be broadcast alongside yours so that you’ll give up altogether.

The threat to a certain type of political speech and thought is real in this Congress. And it’s not going to end. Focus on the Family Action exists to keep you informed so that you can urge your lawmakers to oppose these types of threats at every turn.

>>Having lost that battle, liberals began round two: Operation Hate Crimes. This bill, passed by the House and pending in the Senate, makes “bias” or “hate” a federal crime. However, anyone who “induces” a federal crime (here, a “hate crime”) can also be charged under federal law. Thus, if a parishioner who listened to his pastor’s sermon on the biblical view of homosexuality later assaulted a homosexual, the parishioner could be charged with a federal “hate crime,” and his pastor could be charged federally for “inducing a hate crime.”<<

We looked up that bill and it turns out Federal Hate crimes require violence.

I wonder what will happen the first time the hate crime measure is used against islamonazis...they teach their nonsense from kindergarden on...their mosques preach hatred on a daily basis.....will their imams be held accountable....Hmmmmm??

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.