Frugal Café Blog Zone

Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on June 2, 2010

'Freedom of Speech' was one of four paintings in the series 'Four Freedoms' that Norman Rockwell created during WWII... Democrats and liberal activist groups are threatening to take that away on the Internet

Freedom of speech on the Internet is still threatened, particularly that of conservative speech. “Hate speech” seems to be directed only towards protecting or kowtowing to certain groups (translation: liberal, progressive, socialist, communist, etc.) — very likely, people writing hateful rants wishing that George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or Dick Cheney would die gruesome deaths would be ignored. Criticisms of Team Obama or groups favored by this administration… hmm, wonder how that would go?

The First Amendment is in the crosshairs, patriots.

Excellent post this morning at RedState by Neil Stevens… here’s a portion: Free Press goes all-in on censorship:

It’s now out in the open: the Internet censors are on the march. The neo-Marxists at Free Press promised us that Net Neutrality had nothing to do with censorship. But as I’ve warned, once the FCC did their Title II Deem and Pass reclassification of ISPs as phone companies, in direct contravention of the Telecommunications Act, censorship was fully within their reach.

Even as Republicans have come out strongly against the FCC’s excesses and opposition is even growing from House Democrats, with total opposition now accounting for a majority of the House, Free Press and their pet commissioner Michael Copps are trying to control the whole Internet in the name of preventing “hate speech.”

Free Press ally the National Hispanic Media Coalition also claims that commissar-defined hate speech has no first amendment protection, per Ars Technica:

“The NHMC understands that those who would prefer hate speech to remain under the radar will claim that such an inquiry violates the First Amendment,” the group added. “No doubt they will raise the red herring of the restoration of the ‘fairness doctrine,’ trying to divert the attention of the vast majority of Americans who find hate speech reprehensible.”

Ars Technica asks the obvious followup question:

Finally, why would the FCC want to run an inquiry on Internet content at a time when, in pursuit of revised net neutrality rules, its chair is trying to convince the public that the agency doesn’t want to regulate Internet content?

A previous RedState post by Stevens, House Republicans pile on against FCC Deem and Pass:

I’ve hated to have to talk about out 72 House Democrats (and now John Dingell) are on the record against the FCC and its “Title II reclassification” power grab to deem that the Telecommunications Act 1996 no longer exists and so the FCC can do whatever it wants to ISPs, include control prices and regulate content.

Well now I don’t have to so much anymore. 171 House Republicans have joined up to oppose the FCC’s defiance of the courts and the Congress to ram through Net Neutrality. Comcast v. FCC was a clear and correct decision, the Republicans note. The Telecommunications Act was concrete. They must be obeyed.

Good Job, Joe Barton and the House Republicans.

Arithmetic note: 171 + 72 = 243, more than enough votes to defeat any Net Neutrality bill. We are the majority, not the neo-Marxists at Free Press or the self-seekers at Google.

From across the pond… Daniel Hannan, Telegraph, Obama czar: blogs should be made to ‘volunteer’ to link to politically opposed sites:

According to Obama’s internet czar, Cass Sunstein, we conservatives ought to link to Leftie sites and vice versa. Sunstein says that such links should be voluntary, but adds that “sometimes the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated.” Yup: if they don’t volunteer on their own, maybe Congress will have to make ‘em volunteer.

What is it with Americans and czars, by the way? Didn’t you fellows raise your hands against the Lord’s Anointed because you wanted to get away from centralised, remote, unelected government? I mean, czars, for Heaven’s sake: czars!

Outstanding essay (in its entirety – visit the site for more excellent commentaries) provided by Reason Hit & Run, Media Watchdogs Ask FCC to Track Internet Hate Speech:

A group of liberal media watchdogs, including Free Press, the Media Access Project, and Common Cause, have sent a letter to the FCC asking the agency to track media “hate speech” and its effects, including on the Internet. The letter states that “hate, extremism and misinformation have been on the rise” and asks the agency “to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways to counteract its negative impacts.” (See Ars Technica for a longer summary.)

The letter ties its request to changes in the media and journalism markets, stating: “The Internet gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before.” But shifts in news-industry employment are mostly irrelevant. How many of the jobs lost would have been focused on hate speech? In the heyday of American journalism—whenever you think that was—was there significantly more reporting on so-called hate speech? The implicit argument here is that the FCC should track hate speech in order to plug a newly developed hole in news coverage. But I see no evidence that this is actually the case.

And, of course, taking on this project would mean that the FCC would be forced to make difficult and highly controversial judgment calls about what constitutes hate speech. Would speech that takes after Republicans be tracked? How about anti-Democrat speech? The request focuses on racially-charged expression, but invariably, political views would be brought into the equation. The letter, in fact, refers to responses to Arizona’s newly passed immigration law. Thus, tracking hate speech would put the FCC in the impossible position of drawing a line between reasonable and unreasonable support for the law. I find the law deplorable, but its advocates deserve the right to be able to express their support without fear that a federal agency will label their speech dangerous.

But that’s exactly where hate-speech tracking would lead. The letter indicates that its goal is primarily to collect such information and make it available to the public, and states that any follow-up action should be “non-regulatory.” But does anyone believe it would stay that way? And even without regulation, it would still have a chilling effect on free expression. The hate speech designation, even without regulatory intervention, is a way of dividing speech into good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable, officially approved and unapproved. Even if the FCC never ventured into explicit censorship, such a designation is bound to put pressure on speakers and speech. “Free speech” should not mean “free but frowned upon.”

Check out this post written by John Sexton at Big Journalism: DNC, Obama Now Astroturfing Talk Radio. Those crazy Team Obama Democrats… what WILL they think of next to pull the wool over America’s eyes?

Categories: Conservatism, Freedom of Speech, Government, Law & Constitution, Media & Communication, Social and Political Climate
Tags: Cass Sunstein, censorship, Congress, conservatives, Constitution, czar, Democrat, FCC, FCC Deem and Pass, Internet, Internet censorship, net neutrality, Obama, Obama's czar, Obama's czars, Pres. Obama, Republican, socialism, socialist, socialist media, Telecommunications Act