Sunday, November 08, 2009

Freedom of Speech?

Mark Toharski can always be counted on for hours of pseudo-intellectual babble, and is usually harmless, since even the Left seems to see him for a fool. But I think that he is onto something in his Orwellian world where "free markets" aren't free, but regulated ones are. At least he is as consistent as when he says that he is in favor of capitalism, so long as the government is controlling the markets.
The reason that I think that he is onto something, is that the Obama administration seems to be in agreement with him. Nothing like admiring that fine upstanding democrat Hugo Chavez when we are talking about political speech in this country.
Essentially, Mark and others' argument is that the public airways need to be controlled, not only for the prevention of interference of signals, but the interference of ideas. For that reason, so many are in favor of the so called "Fairness Doctrine" as a means to restrict Talk Radio, and its lack of support for the current Leftist administration. Those darned Right Wingers keep raising unpleasant questions and facts that are getting in the way of implementing the utopia for the workers that they seek. Of course, in this utopia, they would be the masters, but that would be okay, because they would be benevolent.
So, what exactly are we talking about here? What is being impacted by the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? How about the Constitution?
The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The speech element of the Constitution has been litigated from the beginning of the Republic. While not all speech is protected, political speech is. And guess what Right Wing Talk Radio is all about? How about political speech?
The Left's willingness to sacrifice the Constitution for the sake of their agenda is frightening. Do they not realize that by controlling the airwaves, they open the door to the Right doing the same thing to them with the over the air broadcast news? I know that they claim it is already being done through the conservative owners who dictate what the reporters say, which is just plain delusional. As Obama himself said, "Most of you voted for me, and all of you supported me, apologies to the Fox table." It is not the ownership that drives their agenda, it is the agenda of the so called "journalists" who conflate punditry with news reporting.
The last argument that they use, is that the airwaves are public property, therefore the government has the right to regulate them. It is true that the government has the right to regulate who uses frequencies, and how they are used. But that is not the same as regulating what is being said. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
Thank God, that the Left has hit their high water mark, and will soon be on the way out. The threats they pose to the Constitution are too dire to ignore.

4 comments:

Mark T said...

I remember what Molly Ivins said after being attacked by Limbaugh - that it was like being "gummed by a newt. It doesn't actually hurt but it leaves you with slimy stuff on your ankle." That pretty much sums up how it feels to have you after me.

Your grasp of constitutional issues is as broad as your outlook.

OK,now I"m storming out of here! Oh wait -- that's you.

Anonymous said...

Why does Mark T. go by car whenever he travels?

Because the TSA behavior-detection officers always make him miss his flight.

Steve said...

Mark - You are a twit, you have always been a twit, and you apparently always will be a twit.
First, I showed you up for making up statistics, and the fact that you heavily rely on any "facts" that support your opinion, and ignore anything that calls it into question. You are as narrow minded if not more so, than all of the rest that you accuse of the same.
Then, when you have made a deliberate contradiction in statements, you either purposely, or lack the intelligence to recognize your mistake, and stubbornly persist in your fallacy. That is not the sign of an intellect, it's the sign of a petty mind, in over its depth.
Thanks for the final proof. And no, I am not storming out of here or anywhere else. It is regret that I wasted my time to even consider you. You are nothing more than intellectual spam.
Only, without the intellect.

Mark T said...

Steve - honest, you just don't have it. You don't scare me, insult me, intimidate me, or understand what I am saying. You just aren't there yet. I'm no scholar, but I have been around this track before. Nothing you say is new or surprising, nothing sets me back on my heels.

Honest. Give it time, read, see more of the world. Report back. You will have a bit more humility. We may not agree, but at least you will have a philosophical base that goes beyond talk radio.