Jailed For An Insult?

Human Events ^ | 01/28/2009 | Robert Spencer

[Delacon]

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” said Barack Obama to Republican leaders Friday. The new president seems to want to make sure that as few people listen to Rush Limbaugh as possible. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) warned Thursday that “legislation is brewing on Capitol Hill that would take away free speech from broadcasters by reinstating a law” -- the infamous “Fairness Doctrine” -- “that would require talk shows to provide equal time coverage of opposing viewpoints on any issues they discuss.”

This would wipe out conservative talk shows like Limbaugh’s by mandating that programming reflecting a liberal perspective be aired for “balance” if the conservative shows are aired at all -- and with the mainstream media already heavily tilted toward the Left, this would effectively stifle voices that dissent from the Left/liberal line. “The ‘fairness doctrine’ is a violation of free speech,” said Enzi.

Nor is that all. The White House website pledges that “President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation…” The problem with this, of course, is that “hate” is in the eye of the beholder, so “hate crime” laws are essentially tools for enforcing officially-endorsed views. It’s another form of censorship.

“Hate crimes” legislation begets “hate speech” legislation. A cautionary tale is unfolding in the Netherlands this week about how dangerous those can be,

Proving that such tools in the hands of the powerful enable them to silence the powerless and crush dissent, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered that Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament and maker of the notorious film Fitna, be prosecuted for “incitement to hatred and discrimination based on his statements in various media about moslims [sic] and their belief. In addition, the Court of Appeal considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers because of the comparisons made by Wilders of the islam [sic] with the nazism.”

“The insult of Islamic worshippers”? The very idea of trying someone for insulting someone else is absurd, and unmasks the Dutch initiative as an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who judges what is an actionable insult and what isn’t is the one who has the power to control the discourse -- and that’s what the prosecution of Wilders is all about. If insulting someone is a crime, can those who are insulted by hate speech laws bring suit against their framers?

The action against Wilders is taking place against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference’s efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam -- including “defamation of Islam” that goes under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.”

If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West -- in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this initiative not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.

But of course, it couldn’t happen here: freedom of speech could never disappear in America, right? After all, we have the First Amendment. But the Fairness Doctrine initiative shows that its protections can be chipped away. And “hate speech” laws could be justified by a declaration that free speech is still a constitutional right, but after all, every right has its limits: “hate speech” will be specifically exempted from its protections -- and “hate speech” will be defined to encompass speaking honestly about the actual texts and teachings of Islam that contain exhortations to violence and assertions of supremacism, unless one is referencing such material approvingly as a believer.

For to speak of such things in any other way would be to “insult” Muslims, as has Geert Wilders.

The looming battle over the Fairness Doctrine -- Doctrine essentially an attempt to muzzle political dissent -- will reveal a great deal about what opponents of Islamization stateside can expect next.

Lovers of freedom should be watching the Wilders case very closely -- as President Obama is already making abundantly clear -- it could happen here.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)", "The Truth About Muhammad" and the forthcoming"Stealth Jihad" (all from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

[Delacon]

The “Fairness Doctrine” is The Censorship Doctrine

Media Research Center's Free Speech Alliance is a fast-growing coalition of organizations and individuals, who, like you, cherish free speech and who have proactively joined to ensure the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” never returns to silence the conservative voice in America.

First enacted by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required radio stations give equal time to all sides on political issues. However, the result wasn’t equal time, it was zero time – as stations simply avoided topics that would fall under FCC equal time rules.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and since then, talk radio has flourished. Conservatives dominate it, and liberals can’t stand it. By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others, and would essentially take control of all forms of media.

In recent months, the groundswell for reinstatement is intensifying. In fact, a growing number of liberal leaders in Washington, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have openly stated their intent to do so.

As Americans, we cannot sit idly by while this gag order on conservative speech is resuscitated. The time to act is now—so when the time comes, we are mobilized and prepared to defend our Free Speech Rights.



Join the hundreds of thousands of citizens taking action now through MRC’s Free Speech Alliance, and our national petition opposing the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Media Research Center’s Free Speech Alliance goal is to mobilize 500,000 citizens to forever end the threat of the Fairness Doctrine and other attacks on Free Speech. Click on this link.
http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?PID=18645182

 

Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.

[brooklyn dave]

I didn’t think Bam Bam would jump on this right away. He has to be stopped.

[Rocko]

Unfortunately, your last link doesn’t work.

[Delacon]

There was a saying that politics stops at the water’s edge meaning that the US should present a united front in the world arena. Well we all know that ship has sailed. Now the opposite is happening. Certain politicians are joining other countries and foreign organizations as a united front in attacking the US constitution and its institutions. Obama may surf a tidal wave of european born threats to our freedoms onto our own shores. My apologies for the tortured metaphores.

[Nervous Tick]

The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to public broadcast spectrum. Right?

In other words, satellite radio, cable TV, and so forth would not be subject to it. Only AM, FM, UHF and VHF TV. Correct?

Not that I’m in favor of it (which I’m definitely not), nor do I think it’s “harmless” (I think it’s VERY harmful).

However... the blowback from a reinstituted fairness doctrine might just be the accelerated death of the broadcast media, and an explosive new subscriber rate to e.g. satellite radio.

That might be kinda cool.

[Delacon]

Thanks for the heads up. I’ll correct it.

[Mr. Mojo]

The new president seems to want to make sure that as few people listen to Rush Limbaugh as possible.

And has most likely increased Rush's listenership in the process.

[America2012]

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

the knife cuts both ways. NPR and the other LIB rats would all start complaining when and if this takes effect. They are going after the select few with buckshot and the collateral damage is going to be horrendous.

[DBrow]

“The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to public broadcast spectrum. Right?:The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to public broadcast spectrum. Right?”

That's what it should apply to, if everyone follows the rules. If someone rewrites the rules to cover other communications channels, then anything could happen.

Since The One's goal is to eliminate dissent, I expect he'd write something that covers any channel that could hurt The Party's dissemination of ideas and knowledge.

He'll likely go after talk radio, but consider too all the web sites where we can see real climate data as opposed to the stuff Gore spews.

The first effect will be as you predict, I think, with many radio stations folding when the money-making hosts are gone.

[Paleo Conservative]

In other words, satellite radio, cable TV, and so forth would not be subject to it. Only AM, FM, UHF and VHF TV. Correct?

Well what about streaming media (voice and TV) delivered via wireless internet services on frequencies previously allocated to TV broadcasting?

[Nervous Tick]

>> If someone rewrites the rules to cover other communications channels, then anything could happen.

I see your point, but as a practical matter, it would be very difficult, if not intractable, to control Internet content. Then too, there are free speech issues with trying to impose “fairness” on paid subscriber channels that I don’t think the Supremes could ignore. I wouldn’t put it past the communists to try, however.

>> many radio stations folding when the money-making hosts are gone.

If I remember correctly, AM radio was in the doldrums until President Reagan rescinded the Fairness doctrine... then it exploded. A renewed Fairness Doctrine might kill AM. Who the hell would listen to music on AM?

Side point: I would almost — ALMOST — be in favor of a “fairness doctrine” if every program INCLUDING NEWS AND PRIMETIME TEEVEE was included. Just think, a 1/2 hour of “news” plus a half hour of conservative rebuttal! Or, “Will and Grace”... followed by a Christian sitcom with a clear anti-homo message! I’m not serious... but I’m almost serious.

[abb]

It is my thinking (and it is only conjecture) that the internet will eventually moot the fairness doctrine, the FCC, advertising limits, censorship and all such other constraints on information sharing of just about any kind.

Much as movable type ended the Roman Catholic Church’s monopoly on Bible ownership, the internet will shatter today’s puny political shackles.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P8014/index2.html
The Information Age and the Printing Press: Looking Backward to See Ahead[1]

[yazoo]

“However... the blowback from a reinstituted fairness doctrine might just be the accelerated death of the broadcast media, and an explosive new subscriber rate to e.g. satellite radio.”

I think you are correct. Conservative talk radio makes money. if they were prohibited from broadcasting Satellite media would flourish by picking up the conservative talk shows. I already listen to Hannity and a bunch of others on Sat and only tune to AM to hear Rush.

[Squantos]

I hereby volunteer to be the token liberal counter to all of rushes comments ! I can make liberals look worse than the idiots they are with my version of their side ! Sort of a butt head rebuttal per se.......

[Nervous Tick]

>> Well what about streaming media (voice and TV) delivered via wireless internet services on frequencies previously allocated to TV broadcasting?

Who controls the spectrum? Does the FCC license it to a few lucky owners? Or can anyone broadcast there? And, is it free for all to receive it, or is it “scrambled” like satellite and you have to pay for a key to unsubscribe it?

[KrisKrinkle]

“However... the blowback from a reinstituted fairness doctrine might just be the accelerated death of the broadcast media, and an explosive new subscriber rate to e.g. satellite radio.”

Who is likely to control the launch and control of the satellites?

Who controls the frequencies the satellites use to communicate with the ground?

[traditional1]

The lefties already have the MSM, PBS, NPR, etc. that are their propoganda machine. Of course, they deny that they are liberal media, but sponsors of talk radio know the audience of the conservative shows ARE wage-earners and buyers of goods and services. Unlike Lefties, who have to be funded by TAXPAYERS because their voterbase ain’t got two nickels to rub together, and is dependent on handouts for their survival.

[abb]

Of likely interest to you two.

[Paleo Conservative]

Who controls the spectrum? Does the FCC license it to a few lucky owners? Or can anyone broadcast there? And, is it free for all to receive it, or is it “scrambled” like satellite and you have to pay for a key to unsubscribe it?

There are all sorts of new services that are supposed to start up for customers of companies that lease spectrum from the FCC. The ironic thing is that I bet it is much more wasteful of spectrum for 10 million people to stream the same program to their wireless devices at various times of day than it is for one radio station in each market to broadcast the same program once.