Image via Wikipedia"To get the inestimable good that freedom of the press assures one must know how to submit to the inevitable evil it gives rise to." --Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
Klavan Explains "Liberal" Culture
Please watch this 5 minute video in which the gentleman gives you a summary of the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality as it reflects the progressive culture; all of which are just elaborate ways of saying to their conservative counterparts: "Shut up!" If you do watch this you can skip reading the rest of this post, however, I hope you will read on.....there is a lot at stake.
Just before Christmas the FCC decided it had the power to regulate the internet. Did you know that? Do you wonder what that means?
Net Neutrality sounds great. Most names progressives give to their actions and policies sound great, but a closer look is always advisable. A short piece at the Tea Party Patriots, "Net Neutrality is Anything But Neutral" gives you an overview of some major concerns. I think the term "Media Marxism" is a more accurate name for the goals of the FCC regulations. "Equal access," "Equal Rates, "Equal Service" sound like things we can all support but when put in the context of the progressive agenda they shine a bright light on the world view that gives birth to regulations like this and the "unintended consequences" they tend to ignore. Some of these concerns are outlined at News with Attitude, one concern being one's right to speak and publish freely on the internet which, in turn, assures that we continue to have unrestricted access to information....even information we disagree with.
Civil discourse and debate, even heated debate, is what keeps us free and our government "limited." However, the underlying assumption to this is that we can handle the responsibilities that these freedoms bring and progressives do NOT believe most people can do that, hence their advocacy for the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, they've been teaching us for close to 100 years that we cannot handle freedom. They believe that the "select few" who know what's good for us need to impose their view of fairness, "social justice" and reality on us all. I, for one, actually read the Huffington Post and Media Matters in order to test the strength of my beliefs. Many people, however, rely on only one source of information. Progressives want to "force" those people to hear "the other side of the argument." Somehow I don't think the Huffington Post readership and the MSNBC viewers will be forced to read The Blaze or watch Glenn Beck.
There is a great article at the The Constitutionalist Today titled America's Enduring Strength that discusses the different world views as manifested in "right" and "left" ideologies. Our Founders felt that our First Amendment rights were a vital part of finding an equilibrium between extremes. They trusted that "We the People" would be able to figure out how to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when presented with unfettered access to information and the unrestricted right to debate important issues. They had seen firsthand what happens when people have no outlet for their frustrations. Debate can be viewed as a sort of "safety valve." What happens when you shut this down? Have you considered what is happening in Egypt? It seems to me that when people are denied information they will be at the mercy of whoever jumps in to fill that void. The rumors and propaganda get mixed up with what is actually "truth" and this leaves the people at the mercy of individuals who may not have their best interests in mind. Shutting down social media, internet and cellphone services did not calm things down it may have made it worse. This lead to a "lecture" from Secretary of State Clinton that Egyptian authorities needed to restore access immediately. The irony is that our Congress is set to introduce a bill that would give what has been termed a "kill switch" power to our President. (I don't personalize this to "President Obama" because I don't feel comfortable with ANY President of the US having power like this.)
Our Congress is now set to introduce legislation that would give our President the power to seize control and even shut down the internet. Senator Susan Collins (co-sponsor of the bill) says this legislation will not be used by the government to quell dissent. You have to ask yourself if she actually BELIEVES this. If so, she is, at best, naive. Our Constitutional Republic was designed to limit the powers of government for a reason. Someone once said, "Before you tear down a fence you better figure out why is was put up in the first place." Our Founders put a fence around our federal government for a reason. Very simply put, it was to protect our liberty and prevent any one person or group of people from possessing unlimited powers. History has shown us again and again where that leads.
Also worth reading:
Huff Watch: A discussion of the bias and mission of the Huffington Post (which claims to be nonpartisan)
And, as always, I include related articles below which discuss both sides of the issue when possible.....in the interest of fairness. I don't need a law to make me do this because Restoring Honor Starts HERE!
Another article you might find interesting:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/power-shut-internet-court-oversight/
The phrase "without judicial oversight" is the part that might cause the most concern.
Another related article of interest:
ReplyDeletehttp://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/02/03/fcc-orders-nbc-newsrooms-to-partner-with-soros-funded-non-profits/
Another interesting resource:
ReplyDeleteHow to communicate if the internet were to be shut down (for whatever reason :-)
http://www.infowars.com/how-to-communicate-if-the-government-shut-down-the-internet/
http://www.heartland.org/infotech-news.org/article/29217/Philanthropic_Groups_Continue_Assault_on_Free_Speech.html
ReplyDeleteOh the irony of an organization calling itself the "Free Press" when it is anything but!