Government Fears Iron Grip on Media Slipping

What happened to free speech? Just a reminder to everyone, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights says (emphasis added):

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.

So if a government agency was to, say, regulate news outlets to ban them from endorsing a political candidate… would that violate the First Amendment? I suppose if we interpret “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” to mean “Congress can make a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press—if it’s for a really good reason!” then, no, that seems fine, nothing to see here, move along.

But now the government is not satisfied with the annihilation of free speech already forced upon PAC’s, they want to also censor internet news outlets, because their stranglehold on TV media is slipping, and they have to protect their phony bologna jobs. And what happens when regulatory power is given to government? Selective enforcement of regulations, or regulations to “level the playing field” are brought out to destroy whatever competitor is not paying off the right politicians, or propagating the correct point on their media outlet. I’ve actually written about this a lot lately, sparked by Comcast’s merger with Time Warner Cable which the FCC and Justice Department must approve.

News outlets like Drudge Report and other internet media are in the FCC’s crosshairs because they cannot regulate them the same way they regulate broadcast television, you know, for the good of the children.

Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission‘s “fairness doctrine” to cut of conservative voices, and retired Supreme CourtJustice John Paul Stevens has delighted Democrats recently with a proposed Constitutional amendment that some say could force the media to stop endorsing candidates or promoting issues.

Well maybe I should give Justice Stevens credit; at least he thinks the Constitution should be amended in order to steal the rights of the people in favor of government overlordship, while most politicians and government bureaucrats just ignore the Bill of Rights completely! But to think that a man who once sat on the Supreme Court with the sole job of interpreting the black and white words in the Constitution wants to kill the First Amendment, an amendment apparently important enough to the Founders to put it first, is a scary prospect indeed—especially knowing that most decisions are decided 5-4.

But as the FCC’s power wanes and media is moved to the internet, don’t expect them to go down without a fight. They are making bold moves in an attempt to redefine the mission of the FCC to regulate all communications whatsoever, in flagrant disregard to the First Amendment, which anyone who can read can clearly see prohibits regulation of free speech and media. Maybe that’s the point of Common Core, if no one can read (or think), then it doesn’t really matter what the Constitution says, does it?

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. -Animal Farm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s