The Censor’s Doctrine

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
So long as Americans have a First Amendment the censor must always lie. Take away freedom of speech and censorship is nothing more than the government telling you what you cannot say. Put it this way: Censors are not liars in dictatorships.

Even when the government is not the institution doing the censoring in America the censor always lies. The educator lies when he gives a student a failing grade for being politically incorrect; talking heads and print journalists lie when they slant or omit a political story. Institutions that receive tax dollars censor in direct violation of the First Amendment always justify censorship that goes far beyond enforcing the institution’s rules. Institutions of higher learning are the worst offenders in the way they practice censorship with tax dollars.

Envious little institutional dictators who actually do the censoring always have a reason for censoring. I’ve never heard one say “I am censoring you because I don’t like what you said.” They always find some rule or other to hide behind.

Forcing you to listen is a form of censorship. That is exactly what teachers do to students. Forcing you to listen is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine was all about before President Reagan did away with it. There’s a good chance the Fairness Doctrine will be reinstated:


According to “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, Obama’s advisers are so adamant about silencing voices who oppose their position on man-made global warming, they are “outrageously” recommending Obama “reinstate the anti-free speech Fairness Doctrine in order to shut up some of global warming theory’s most effective challengers.”

The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoints on controversial issues, effectively making political talk radio unsustainable for any local station.

Rush identified the culprits:

Limbaugh, host of the nation’s top-rated radio program, said previously “the whole Democrat Party” supports revival of the controversial policy.

“If they get their way,” Limbaugh said, “they’re going to do their best to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine.

Democrat party strategy is to force the audience to listen to the liberal message whether it be environmental crapola or any other piece of socialism’s ideology. The problem for Democrats is that the radio audience is not a captive audience as are students in the education system. In 2008 Rush explained choice the Fairness Doctrine forces on management:

‘I can’t run a radio station this way where most of my day is spent answering the phone from a bunch of liberals demanding that they get some time on the radio to respond to whatever my conservative hosts are saying,’ and so they shut it down. They kill the format, and they go play Chinese opera or whatever. That’s the objective.”

Rush, Hannity, Savage face 'death by Obama'
Talk radio could receive fatal blow if president wins 2nd term
Published: 16 hours ago
by JOE KOVACS

Rush, Hannity, Savage face ‘death by Obama’

The major stumbling block for Democrats is this: The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it does not guarantee listeners. There is no doubt Democrats pray the radio audience will voluntarily listen to Big Brother’s “message(s).” The Fairness Doctrine’s track record shows that audiences refuse to listen. Democrats know that; so their objective is to kill the format as Rush warned. Democrat party philosophy is simple: “If you won’t listen to our messages you cannot listen to our opposites.”

NOTE: Public Radio & Public Television cannot force people to listen, but the government does force the public to pay for the microphone. Should the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated it should apply to television entertainment shows, too. Opponents of every piece of liberal crap dialogue said by the characters in every show should get equal time to respond on the show being challenged.

Shutting down conservative talk radio obscures the fact that the Fairness Doctrine is a shield for government officials who censor because they do not believe in freedom of speech. If they did they would know that the most offensive speech requires the most protection.

Finally, nothing angers a personality that leans towards censorship more than somebody who won’t listen. I’ve run into censorship on every message board I posted on. The reasons varied the result was the same. Notice that liberals insist on equal time to respond to conservatives on the radio, while message board censors insist on equal time in a debate. I’m always tickled by that approach to censorship because message boards contain an ignore function (a filter) which makes the debate gambit a joke.
 
The book I cited in the OP covers a lot more than reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Jerry McConnell over at Canada Free Press devotes today’s column to immigration:

. . . “The schemes and many more are documented in the soon-to-be-released book “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed.”

The book, by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, uncovers the template for Obama’s next four years - the actual, extensive plans created by Obama’s own top advisers and progressive strategists.” The article continues, “The second-term amnesty plans come in the form of interagency directives, legislative attempts and a series of Executive Orders similar to Obama’s June 2012 Order to stop deporting young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children if they meet certain requirements.”

Obama’s October Surprise May Be His Ugliest Action Yet
Jerry McConnell Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Obama’s October Surprise May Be His Ugliest Action Yet

I can’t help thinking that all criticism of Hussein’s immigration policies will be met by the censor’s ax on TV even without the Fairness Doctrine.
 

Forum List

Back
Top