The other day I linked to an article that described the efforts of some, to create a NEW INTERNET. It was a boring read, to say the least. I also read a couple other stories, and will share them now.
Nothing fair about Fairness Doctrine
Americans are about to learn that when it comes to protecting their civil liberties, they can’t relax no matter which party is in power in Washington.
After spending eight years wailing about President George W. Bush’s relentless disregard for the Bill of Rights, Democrats are preparing to launch an assault on the most precious individual freedom of all — free speech.
They are trying to shut down conservative talk radio, the primary source of criticism of their programs and policies.
[...]
Stifling dissent is a favored weapon of those who are convinced they know what’s best for the people and are willing to trample the people’s rights to give it to them.
We all know this. No news here.
What is interesting, and I’m surprised at the lack of linking to this editorial:
Time for a muzzle
The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it time to rethink free speech?
Speech now travels farther faster than the Founding Fathers – or the judges who created much of modern free speech law – could have dreamed. The Web has brought a new reach to the things we say about others, and created a vast potential audience for arguments that would once have unfolded in a single room or between two telephones.
[...]
Now, some legal scholars are beginning to argue that new technologies have changed the balance of power between the right to speak and the right to be left alone. At conferences, in law review articles, and, increasingly, in the courts, some lawyers are suggesting that the time has come to rethink some of the hallowed protections that the law gives speech in this country, especially if that speech is online.
[...]
At stake is the basic question of what we will allow people to say and do online, whether it’s on a message board, a Craigslist ad, or a YouTube video – and who gets to set the rules governing what’s OK and what’s not. As the Web grows increasingly interactive, the system of informal and formal rules that determines appropriate behavior is only beginning to emerge, and thinkers on both sides of the debate agree that courts can go a long way toward shaping it.
[...]
The MUzzle Piece goes on to describe different ways to hold web site owners accountable for their content, including any comments left by web site users.
This all comes together, quite neatly, when we read this article, which is full of revealing ideas but is vigorously denied as being factual. I believe what is written here occurred, and one Henry Waxman didn’t like being caught trying to kill free speech.
First radio, now the Web?
Media analysts and bloggers are warning that fresh efforts to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine could go too far, following a report that one prominent Democrat is looking into ways to apply the media control standards to the Internet.
The Fairness Doctrine is a policy created decades ago but abolished in the late 1980s that required broadcasters to provide opposing views on controversial issues.
While some Democrats have talked about reviving the policy, The American Spectator reported Monday that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is taking the call to a new level. The article said aides to the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee met last week with Federal Communications Commission staff to discuss ways to not only enact those policies but give Waxman’s panel greater oversight over the Internet.
“It’s all about diversity in media,” the Spectator quoted a House energy committee staff member as saying. “Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? … Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?”
Can we see Daily Kos linking to Malkin on each and every post written? Can we see the bonehead Meaty bothering to research and take time to link to the opposing view of every post he publishes? I SURE AS HELL WON’T DO IT…this is what free speech is about. It’s not without consequences. We own what we say and write. We’re not always correct. But we do have a right to speak freely and without any interference from the government. People from ALL sides of the political spectrum should stand up to this nonsense UNFairness Doctrine and reject it, wholesale and in any form.
ARS on Twitter
RSS
