« Tracking Obama hatred: Hitler comparisons | Main | Paul Broun stands by Obama/Hitler rhetoric »

November 11, 2008

Comments

I hope we all agree that the with the huge number of news outlets on cable TV, AM-FM-satellite radio, dead tree, and internet, there's no justification for letting the federal government control what is said. Although the Dems claim to support civil liberties, it's the Republicans who are on the side of good on this issue.

Brendan's point may be valid, but he's splitting hairs. To "disavow support" for this bill doesn't mean that Obama won't sign it if Congress passes it. Hatch is correct that electing another Dem Senator increases the risk that the media will loss their freedom of speech.

As reported by Insapundit, the threat of federal action may already be leading to self-censorship by the media.

I wonder if fairness-doctrine fears are already having a chilling effect. As Clay Whitehead said about Nixon's use of the FCC to intimidate critics, the value of the sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it falls. . . .

P.S. Comparisons to Hitler and Communism are bad enough. A comparison to Nixon raises the insult to a whole new level! ;)

"over $1 trillion in new spending"

That's a funny one, considering that under George Bush we've spent over a $1 trillion to bail out the Wall Street in the last few months alone.

(And that Hatch voted for the bailout bill along with 33 other Republican Senators).

Remember the good ol' days, back in 2002 through 2004, when people were condemned for criticizing the president during a time of war? Guilty conscience much?

"another Dem Senator increases the risk that the media will loss their freedom of speech"... in a mathematical sense, maybe. But every good American knows that the Democrats have always had a platform of free speech suppression. It was central to Obama's election!

rone uses the word "condemned" to mean "criticized". No media outlet lost their broadcast license because they criticzed the President. No force of law was ever used to punish any station or prohibit what they said.

Brendan wrote, "[C]ensorship of conservative talk radio" is a reference to proposals to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

According to some, their have also been suggestions to censor conservative talk radio by the use of localism complaints. See http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html

The New Republic has a great article on the myth of the coming reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. As Brendan ponints out, Obama has explicitly ruled it out. Some righties like to play the victim card, I guess...higher ratings perhaps.

The comments to this entry are closed.