The enemies of free speech are on the march--Part 6: forget Imus--you're next

The enemies of free speech are on the march--Part 6: forget Imus--you're next


Wes Vernon
Wes Vernon
April 16, 2007


The speech police — bereft of ideas they are willing to subject to open debate — want you to stop pestering your congressman and senators with letters, e-mails, and phone calls telling them what you think about important issues. Members of Congress are considering legislation aimed at making you shut up and leave them alone. Intimidation is the method. You need to fight back. More on that below.

A single source?

The speech police are coming at Americans from many different directions. It cannot be traced to one grand conspiracy, although some coordinated efforts are obvious on different levels. The closest one can come to nailing any one person is to note that George Soros money is behind some of the intimidation efforts. The forces at work here are clearly frightened by openness. They know that if they were to offer their real agenda to the "marketplace of ideas," they would be rejected.

This form of all-out psychological warfare has been going on for at least two decades, with campus speech codes starting in the eighties, and gravitating to other segments of the public square. As the opening shot in what could well be a long higher profile national drive, the perpetrators have landed like a ton of bricks on a weak link in the chain — always good strategy when you're plotting to bring down the less vulnerable.

Don Imus

Radio talkshow host Don Imus — supporter of John Kerry in 2004 and longtime purveyor of over-the-air trash — lost his job because of a vile insult he leveled against players on a women's basketball team.

No one can justify what he said. But why are the speech police jumping all over him now? He's been airing racist and other offensive comments for years. He referred to a media critic as "a beanie-wearing Jew boy," and when a black newswoman was assigned to the White House, he said "the cleaning lady" would be covering the administration.

But is one to believe that Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton — ordered by a court of law to pay $87,000 to the victim of one of his slanderous attacks — and Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson — a shakedown artist whose operations would make the Godfather blush — never noticed Imus until just a few days ago? Surely no one believes the gods of "political correctness" are unaware of the far worse things in rap music that is played over the radio all the time. Hillary Clinton has not returned the $800,000 she raked in at the mansion of a tycoon who traffics in rap hip-hop music. Supreme hypocrisy is at hand.

Celebs have often appeared on the Imus show, ignoring the racist and ethnic outrages as if that part of Imus were separate from the part of him that gives them entrée to the public square.

Where does it end?

No, there's more in play here. Imus is the Achilles heel. Going after a trash talker is an easy first step toward the real goal: They're really after the conservatives who dominate talk radio big time. Al Sharpton, who has used the "n" word in some of his rhetoric, says Imus is only the beginning. (And how do the speech police intend to muzzle you? Be patient. There is a pattern here.)

The Unfairness Doctrine

Now that Democrats have regained control of Congress, they have introduced legislation aimed at reviving the FCC's old "Fairness Doctrine," an Orwellian sounding policy the Federal Communications Commission enforced for years (until 1987) — requiring that if a conservative over-the-air host or commentator is on the air, a liberal would have to be given time to offset him.

On paper, that sounds reasonable. Here's the problem: Liberals, for the most part, have been unable to attract significant audiences on talk radio. Surprise, surprise. The liberal gospel is already in abundant supply on major networks and the editorial pages of the major newspapers, as well as many if not most of the smaller market papers.

To make a long story short, under (what should be called) the Unfairness Doctrine, if the broadcaster could not afford to carry a liberal who would drive listeners and thus advertisers or viewers away, well, too bad; he would have to dump the conservative host, as well. The so-called Fairness Doctrine was nothing but a muzzle on free speech.

At a Free Congress discussion Friday, the term "Freedom Doctrine" was coined by one of the panelists as a way of defining free and unfettered discussion of the issues. I suggested only public outrage would stop the effort to tear down the one media outlet where conservatives have become dominant — talk radio. The slogan could be "The Freedom Doctrine Versus the Unfairness Doctrine."

Another panelist noted that if a Democrat wins the White House, the new president could re-impose the unfairness doctrine by nominating an FCC chairman who is sympathetic to the idea. The only barrier would be a Senate rejection of the nominee, unlikely if the Dems retain control of the Senate.

Soft-pedaling the enemy

The taxpayer-supported Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) has cancelled a documentary titled Islam vs. Islamist, Voices from the Muslim Center.

This documentary, co-produced by former Reagan Administration official Frank Gaffney, spotlights the ugly retaliation by Muslims against Muslim dissenters who protest Islamist violence or intolerance in the contemporary United States, Canada, and Western Europe. A Washington Times editorial described the film as "hard-hitting," but said, "The American people are grown up. They can handle it."

There is an implication here that PBS was either intimidated or it censored itself for fear of outrage on the part of pressure groups such as the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose antics we described in Part 1 of this ongoing series on the enemies of free speech. (See column August 22, 2005.) At that time, they had put in motion a series of events that led to the firing of a local Washington, D.C. talkshow host.

Now the threat is getting up close and personal

The would-be tyrants do not stop at going after radio and TV personalities. They are also after you.

Congressman Henry Waxman and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (and also some Republicans) want to shut you up.

Not if you happen to be one of Waxman's celebrity Hollywood constituents in Beverly Hills.

Not if you're a boss of some powerful liberal foundation.

Not if you're part of the mainstream media.

And certainly not if you're a powerful congressional committee chairman.

You're singled out

No, no. Ordinary citizens, especially those with conservative non-establishment views — are to be muzzled.

Two bills are involved, and congressmen who are tired of pesky constituents nagging the government about mere issues want to let you know that Big Brother is watching.

The House leadership is backing legislation (yet untitled) that would require registration and reporting by some individuals and groups who try to persuade their members — or non-members — to communicate with congressmen and senators regarding pending legislation.

The second bill is bipartisan mischief, the handiwork of Reps. Waxman, a California Democrat and Tom Davis, a Republican from Virginia. That Davis would go along with this is troubling and lends credence to the saying that while the Democrats are the evil party, the Republicans are the stupid party. Davis — representing Virginia's Washington D.C. suburbs — is marked for political extinction by Democrats whose strength in his district is on the rise. Maybe the man has a political death wish.

H.R. 984 — (should that be 1984?) — would require thousands of officials — high and low, big wheels and faceless bureaucrats — to file quarterly reports listing every letter, e-mail, fax, and verbal communication received from any "private party" that "seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States."

Here's where you come in: "Private party" is defined as any person other than another government official or staff person. That means you.

This is "ethics reform"?

Oh, but it's okay, you see, because it's "ethics reform."

In other words, in the land of the free, your communication with anyone in government can be considered "unethical." See why 23 years after 1984, the spirit of George Orwell lives?

Against abortion? You're on the watch-list

Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) says either of the two measures "would seriously interfere with the activities of groups that keep the public informed about what is going on in Congress and with ability of citizen groups" to represent effectively "the views of their membership to government officials."

The Senate has said no — so far

In January, the Senate rejected — on a 55-43 — an amendment to regulate grassroots lobbying.

The good guys

For that blow for freedom, you can thank NRLC, the Family Research Council, the National Rifle Association, the American Center for Law and Justice, the Free Speech Coalition, and the American Civil Liberties Union. The latter — usually on the wrong side of issues — would have looked silly if it had not opposed this government muzzle.

The bad guys

Supporters of the muzzle are some longtime liberal so-called "public interest" groups who long for the good old days of the seventies post-Watergate era when conservatism was all but outlawed. They include Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Democracy 21, OMB Watch, and other usual suspects. They don't like it when grassroots citizens sass them back in Washington.

Tell Congress you won't shut up

Those Americans whose tax dollars pay the salaries of their public servants, and who consider it their right to communicate with those officials — elected or appointed — need to telephone their congressmen and senators now (no time for letters, lawmakers may sneak this through) and demand that they reject these schemes to restrain your basic First Amendment right to petition your government. (Capitol switchboard number 202-224-3121.)

The end of America as we know it?

Don Imus makes an easy target. But the enemies of free speech see his firing as the opening wedge to attack conservative talkshow hosts, to ban films that alert us to our enemies foreign and domestic, and ultimately to intimidate you into silence. You don't have to take it lying down. Public outrage is needed while there is still time to prevent America from morphing into a police state.

Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

© Copyright 2007 by Wes Vernon
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/070416

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Want On GyG's E-Mail List?
Send/Reply: GunnyG@GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line....
~~~~~~~~~~
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!
R.W. "Dick" Gaines
(The Original "Gunny G")
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952- (Plt #437PISC)-'72
Sites & Forums For... The Thinking Marine!

GyG's Globe and Anchor! --Sites & Forums
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

GyG's Old Salt Marines Tavern ~Interactive~
http://network54.com/Forum/135069

THIS AIN'T YER GRANDPAP'S AMERICA ANYMORE!
http://1984gunnyg.blogspot.com/

GyG's Globe and Anchor Weblog
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/

GyG's History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/

The GyG Archive/Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
~~~~~
Add Gunny G's FURL RSS Feed To YOUR Site!
http://www.furl.net/shareSite.jsp
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
USMC, History, Unusual/Controversial, Politically Incorrect, News-n-Views,
Eye-Opening and Thought-Provoking Articles, etc.