enjoy your free speech while you can!

(Gov. Palin would be fined under Obama, or given a gag order)

The Coming Counterrevolution To Hush The Alternative Media

By BRIAN C. ANDERSON | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.

Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.

Signs of what the new environment will be like for the right are already evident:

• When the National Rifle Association recently released television and radio ads in Pennsylvania targeting Obama's history of anti-gun votes, the Obama campaign's general counsel fired off bullying letters to stations that ran the spots, implying that they may have violated public-interest obligations.

• When the 527 group, the American Issues Project, came out with a commercial linking Obama to former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the campaign (unsuccessfully) complained to the Department of Justice that AIP had broken campaign finance laws, and managed to spook some stations away from the ad.

• When two different conservative writers looking into Obama's background appeared on Chicago's WGN-AM Radio, the campaign's "action wire" energized its activists to bombard the station with rage-filled phone calls and e-mails, making the program more difficult to conduct.

(The show, hosted by the eminently reasonable Milt Rosenberg, had on both occasions invited the Obama campaign to send a representative to respond; the campaign preferred to answer with digital brownshirts.)

These crude efforts are only a start.

A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

True, Obama says he isn't in favor of re-imposing this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC junked it in the '80s, required broadcasters to give airtime to opposing viewpoints or face fines or even loss of license. But most top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are revved up about the idea, and it's hard to imagine Obama vetoing a new doctrine if Congress delivers him one.

Make no mistake: a new Fairness Doctrine would vaporize political talk radio, the one major medium dominated by the right. If a station ran a successful conservative program like, say, Mark Levin's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative, even if — as with Air America and all other liberal efforts in the medium to date — it can't find any listeners or sponsors.

Then there are all the lawyers you'd have to hire to fend off the government regulators. Too much hassle, many radio executives would conclude; better switch to entertainment coverage or some other anodyne format. In 1980, it's worth recalling, talk shows of any kind numbered fewer than 100 nationwide, not thousands like today.

And Obama does say he wants to tighten media ownership regulations and expand the public interest duties of broadcasters, including by imposing greater "local accountability" on them — that is, forcing stations to carry more local programming, even if the public isn't demanding it (which it isn't).

This measure — aimed at national syndicators like Salem Radio that make conservative shows available from coast to coast — is just a sneakier way of shrinking the listenership of hosts like William Bennett or Hugh Hewitt, or even getting them off the air altogether.

Obama, like congressional Democrats, also wants to regulate the Internet, the only other medium in which the right does well, via its influential bloggers.

The means here: something called "network neutrality." Neutrality, if enacted, would give government overseers at the FCC the power to ensure that Internet providers treated equally all the information bits surging across the Web's "pipes" — its cables, fiber optics, phone lines and wireless connections.

This measure makes zero economic sense. Broadband providers want to manage more actively — and thus profitably — those information bits. They'd like to offer, for instance, new superfast delivery for sites or users willing to pay more (not unlike how FedEx speeds delivery of packages for a fee), or other new services such as online video or telephony.

Network neutrality would render all that illegal. But why, then, should broadband investors keep building the Web infrastructure needed to keep pace with surging use? Where's their financial incentive?

Yet if that infrastructure isn't in place soon, the vast amount of data pouring online will begin to slow the Web to a crawl, many experts believe. Needless to say, neutrality also will be a gold mine to telecom lawyers, who'll have their hands full figuring out what constitutes "digital discrimination."

But the biggest potential danger of neutrality is that its concern for equal treatment of bits will extend to sites' content, creating a kind of Fairness Doctrine for the Web, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has warned — and as Obama adviser and law professor Cass Sunstein once called for.

Not coincidentally, hampering the alternative media with new regulations would leave the liberal mainstream press, which still enjoys full First Amendment protections, comparatively empowered.

Given how the "MSM" has covered this presidential race — fawning over Obama and pummeling John McCain and especially his charismatic running mate Sarah Palin at every opportunity — it's easy to see why many liberals may be hoping for a media restoration.

Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of "A Manifesto for Media Freedom," just out from Encounter.

You are correct that the Freedom of Speech is in jeopardy. It also shows that Obama is a wimp.

Now, they're raising holy hell on that sheriff down in Florida because he introduced the messiah by his full name.

Thes people are the hard left - freedom of speech is just for them, any dissent is a "smear" that needs to be treated as a "hate crime". The MSM are downright Orwellian now - they are in decline, the only way out for them is for them to becoming a monopoly again.

You know what...let the little babies whine.

It will make election day that much sweeter when BHO looses.

Word of caution though: get guns and mace, board up your doors and windows, and stay home the week after the election.

Sweet Nightmare, I still am amazed that you're only 18 years old. You sound closer to 40, and I mean that as a compliment.

You're right, they'll be rioting in the streets in large cities post-election. Corsi claims that's part of some exit plan the messiah and his thugs have, even James Carville thinks this will happen. I live in a very rural area, more horses and cows than people, but I'll still be careful.

If the unthinkable happens, they'll be rioting in celebration before they turn it on the American people - the military would probably balk right there, just go to any military forum. They REALLY want McCain to win.

Hey, you can all come and live with me. I live in a small farming community in an old farm house. It ought to be pretty quiet here.

WA, careful...we may all just take you up on that offer!

Ebinger wrote:Sweet Nightmare, I still am amazed that you're only 18 years old. You sound closer to 40, and I mean that as a compliment.

You're right, they'll be rioting in the streets in large cities post-election. Corsi claims that's part of some exit plan the messiah and his thugs have, even James Carville thinks this will happen. I live in a very rural area, more horses and cows than people, but I'll still be careful.

If the unthinkable happens, they'll be rioting in celebration before they turn it on the American people - the military would probably balk right there, just go to any military forum. They REALLY want McCain to win.

19 in 4 days

If he doesn't win, other than the riots, they will be screaming racism or cheating.
And I would see why the Military would want McCain...O will cut military funding and make a joke out of our men and women of honor.

I live in the heart of NJ sadly. If I have enough days left, I'll just take off classes on Nov 5.

You and WA are lucky. I'd rather live in a quiet rural area than a congested corrupt state. Well, some places are nice...but there are many (Trenton, Camden, Newark to name a few) that are...not such nice areas.

Well, let's hope for the best, and that Obama might show a tiny bit of dignity and try and talk people out of it... than again... it is Obama, so make sure to plan for the worst. The dem's complained that the last two elections were "stolen" so I have absolutely no doubt they'll do it again, I'm only hoping the warning of rioting are exaggerated and it's more of the same of people complaining(which they have every right to, unless Obama becomes President... brown shirts anyone?)

Nariman wrote:Well, let's hope for the best, and that Obama might show a tiny bit of dignity and try and talk people out of it... than again...

Heck, the guy was telling his minions to riot in his own words. In short, to "get in the faces of republicans and independents"

The guy would probably write a book about how racist America is because he didn't get elected. Someone is going to do it.


Notice how republicans are not using the gender card or yelling "sexism" every 3 seconds.

SweetNightmare wrote:

Heck, the guy was telling his minions to riot in his own words. In short, to "get in the faces of republicans and independents"

The guy would probably write a book about how racist America is because he didn't get elected. Someone is going to do it.


Notice how republicans are not using the gender card or yelling "sexism" every 3 seconds.

I actually forgot about that, that makes this a whole lot grimmer, my hope of it being lessened by Obama is moot, because he's the one flaming it on. Now I can only hope those same masses that will riot, will continue to do what they have done in the past when the going got tough, and sit on their couches at home.

Shoot, if Obama doesn't write it, I might, it will be about how Obama almost took an election based solely on his skin color, cause his political resume is a joke.

Nariman wrote:...unless Obama becomes President... brown shirts anyone?)

I'll take this oportunity to remind everyone of the most fascist statement ever made by a politician in this country.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Barrack Obama, July 2, 2008

Parse that statement. A civilian force that shares the duties of the military. As strong, as powerful, as well funded as the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, patrolling America's streets. Will they be called Truth Squads?

Both Edinger and I know what it is like to feel like you don't have a lot of power. Our Governor race was stolen from us in 2004 by incredible corruption. It took 3 re-counts before the Democrats had 127 more votes than the Republicans. On the morning after the election, the Republican was ahead by 1,000 votes.

The Hillary supporters know what it is like after their experience this year in the primaries.

Let's all just make a vow to do what we can to make sure the John and Sarah end up in the WH on 11/4.

I_(heart)_Sarah wrote:

Nariman wrote:...unless Obama becomes President... brown shirts anyone?)

I'll take this oportunity to remind everyone of the most fascist statement ever made by a politician in this country.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Barrack Obama, July 2, 2008

Parse that statement. A civilian force that shares the duties of the military. As strong, as powerful, as well funded as the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, patrolling America's streets. Will they be called Truth Squads?

I'm thinking SS type goon squads - - just to keep everybody in line.

Note to self: *buy more ammo*

I agree - think of the implications..... a force he could control, mostly made up of extremists making sure that you behaved. SS, etc. History is full of such things. This is why the founding fathers created things as they did - to ensure nothing such as this could take place.

This is pretty much what they had in Cuba and still do. Communist families in every neighborhood that would serve to spy on the ones that did not agree with Castro. We had one across the street from my house when I was a little girl ( 8 years), before my family came to the US. There were called "committees". Those of us who've lived through that know how scary this man is.

*shudders*

robertdewalt wrote:I tried enjoying free speech on these forums, until I said something against the Leader Palin. Now I'm paying the price - I have to go fishing for crabs in Alaska. That's like Siberia for Russians. Does anyone here have extra gloves?

Don't the forum door hit you in the ass on your way OUT.