Tag Archives: Fairness Doctrine

More First Amendment regulatory threats

Posted on by

Leftists and the Deep State can’t wait to continue pushing for the diminishment and possible erasure of your First Amendment rights.

The FEC has been after the Drudge Report for years. So has the FCC. This, on its face, is a ridiculous goal. Matt Drudge hasn’t actually written anything for years; his site is nothing more than a laughingly-simplistic point on the internet that does nothing more than aggregate stories from around the globe.

That’s right. All the Drudge Report does is re-package stories written entirely from external sources. His source material is frequently the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, the AP, Slate, the Huffington Post, NPR, The Guardian — all bastions of Left-leaning journalism.

No matter; never allow facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion or common sense get in the way of a good fucked-up Leftist inclination, decision or bill. Not surprisingly, it’s a push from the FEC once again.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing ‘fake news’

by Paul Bedard

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

At whom, potentially, is this proposal aimed? Correct: you and me. People interested in politics and have sites on the internet as well as a social media presence. People who conduct internet radio shows. Like me. That’s next. Make no mistake.

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

Friends, this is a page ripped from the former Soviet Union. Your gulag awaits you!

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation.

Berkeley, of course — the locus of free speech in America.

The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left’s effort to regulate political talk they don’t like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.

Lee Goodman told Secrets, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com.”

He was especially critical of the undefined nature of “disinformation” to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn’t like.

And just whom determines “disinformation”? Kompromat or disinformatzia, tovarisch? A panel of Conservatives or a panel of Leftists? Correct. Leftists. Conservatives won’t be allowed within ten miles of a determination.

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

We already have Speech Crimes in LeftistLand. There may be ClickCrimes. MindCrimes are, of course, next.

Here is the full Ravel article for reference.

Then there is this from YahooNews.com, with John McCain in apparent agreement.

U.S. bill to regulate internet ads gains bipartisan support with McCain

by David Ingram

(Reuters) – U.S. legislation that would impose new disclosure requirements on political ads that run on Facebook and other websites received support on Wednesday from Senator John McCain, giving a bipartisan boost to a bill already popular among Democrats.

McCain, a longtime supporter of regulating campaign finances, and two Democratic senators, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner, plan to introduce the legislation on Thursday, according to a statement from their offices on Wednesday.

Good old John McCain. You can generally count on him to put his thumb in the eyes of freedom of speech any more. Or anything that he perceives President Trump might possibly support.

Online political ads are much more loosely regulated in the United States than political ads on television, radio and satellite services.

The lack of regulation was highlighted last month when Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc said that they had found election-related ad buys on their services made by people in Russia in the run-up to last year’s U.S. presidential election. Non-Americans are generally not allowed to spend money to influence U.S. elections.

How about, instead of law after law, we just ask the social media to be more wary? Anyone think of that?

Speaking of Loving John, here is a bit of witty repartee between McCain and Fox’s Peter Doocey.

The question by Doocy was “has your relationship with the president frayed to the point where you’re not going to support anything that he comes to you and asks support for?”

McCain replies: “why would you ask anything that stupid? Why would you ask something that dumb? Huh? My job as a United States senator, as a senator from Arizona which I was just re-elected to, you mean that I’m somehow going to behave in a way that I’m going to block everything because of some personal disagreement? That’s a dumb question.”

Let’s see, John. Would that possibly be because you are in fact so vehemently opposed to most anything that President Trump has proposed, that you’ve worked hand-in-hand with the Demorats to slaughter the repeal of the ACA much less any replacement — you know, the very thing you ran on for eight years — as well as the slaughter of tax cuts? With regularity and consistency? John? Perhaps those things?

And John, while we’re at it, have you forgotten what you said in Philadelphia this Monday, October 16th?

PHILADELPHIA — An emotional Sen. John McCain on Monday leveled a blistering attack on what he called the “half-baked, spurious nationalism” that seems to have inspired President Trump’s administration to retreat from the world stage.

In a speech to accept the National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal, McCain, R-Ariz., emphasized that the United States is “a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” a rebuke to the Nazi slogan about bloodlines and territory chanted in August by White supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville, Va.

An at-times raspy-sounding McCain drew applause and cheers at the Philadelphia event when he said:

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last, best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

A reminder:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished. Another reason that Republican fundraising is down this quarter. Consequences for inaction? Gridlock? Failure to keep election promises? Failure to coalesce and utilize power the GOP possesses presently?

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

 Share

FEC wants to remove your freedoms — again

Posted on by

First, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

FEC Dems renew bid to regulate Internet, Drudge, ‘not done fighting’

by Paul Bedard

They’ve repeatedly tried and failed to impose regulations on Internet political communications, possibly even media sites like the Drudge Report, but congressional testimony that unnamed Russians spent $100,000 for politically themed ads on Facebook is sparking a new bid by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission.

You say the US government has tried on prior occasions to censor the Drudge Report? Yes. By the FCC as I wrote here on May 5th of 2015, and here on August 24h of 2015.

The FEC, specifically, tried back in 2014 as Paul Bedard, the author of this newest article above, documented here:

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation — like PACs

by Paul Bedard

Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media’s exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight.

The real truth is this — no more complicated.

“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.

When you cannot win the war of ideas, that is to say “the message,” then your only alternative is to shut down “the messenger” which, in these cases, translates to the internet itself and some sites specifically, like Drudge. Mine is next. So is yours.

(FEC Chairman Lee Goodman) added, “Truth be told, I want conservative media to have the same exemption as all other media.”

That translates to, as I have said for quite some time: “No one is equal until everyone is equal.”

The history explained here, as well.

You can already see the Leftist social media giants shutting down free speech. But whose free speech? Those on the right. Leftist speech remains predominantly uninterrupted, undisturbed and inviolate unless it is so shockingly egregious that even the American Media Maggots begin to notice a bit. Even then, not consistently. Death threats against President Trump on Twitter, for example, tend to remain unless they are somehow brought to light. Massive light.

Then don’t forget about this aspect.

Liberals over the years have also pushed for a change in the Federal Communications Commission‘s “fairness doctrine” to cut off conservative voices, and retired Supreme Court Justice 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.

At one point the “fairness doctrine” — which is the precise opposite, of course — ruled in media. Its attempt, originally, was to actually ensure some semblance of “fairness” in broadcasting when media choices were extremely limited, the precise opposite of today.

See my previous posts about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”:

I value two things primarily: honesty and clarity. So let’s be clear: the only reason the FEC or the FCC wish to limit and regulate speech under the guise of “fairness” or “equanimity” is to limit the speech of only one side: the conservative side. To limit the dissemination of information which thusly informs voters and allows Conservatives to acquire facts, data and particulars on political issues.

Because, after all, everything is political now.

Finally: where are the Republicans on this? Why no public GOP umbrage over the issue? Statements? Decisions to oppose? Republicans taking a stand against this?

Another reason Conservative trust in the GOP has almost vanished.

Not difficult to figure out.

BZ

P.S.

Great article on the Fairness Doctrine from 1993 is here.

 

 Share

“Net neutrality” = Fairness Doctrine?

Posted on by

Joker - Which Were CowardsI was thinking.

Now that the Obama Leftists have the GOP right where they want them, dangling at the end of an erectile-dysfunctional leash, what might be a major reason the FCC won’t release the 322-page document?  Why is it so secret?  Why so serious?

I was thinking: if I were the Obama-run FCC and I wanted to help throttle the internet and begin the systematic removal of our First Amendment (Obama is already working on that pesky Second Amendment), what would I do?

I know.  I’d place within those regulations a return to the Fairness Doctrine, and I would apply said doctrine to the internet.  I’d apply it to blogs, I’d slather it like warm butter all over the web.

Takers on the bet?

BZ

Net Neutrality Kill Switch

 Share

Regulate the internet! Obama demands

Posted on by

Net Neutrality - Govt RegulatedIt’s all about “net neutrality” and “fairness” after all, isn’t it?

First, from CNet.com, then a personal experience about the internet:

Obama: Regulate broadband Internet like a utility so it ‘works for everyone’

by Don Reisinger and Roger Cheng

President Obama calls for tighter rules from the FCC — leaving a little bit of wiggle room — in an effort to preserve a “free and open Internet.”

President Obama urged the US government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve “a free and open Internet.”

In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of treating all Internet traffic the same way, known in shorthand as Net neutrality. That means treating broadband services like utilities, the president said, so that Internet service providers would be unable “to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.”

As everyone knows, if you want to promote innovation, new thinking, improve technology, the first thing you do with an idea or a service is throttle it to death.  Yeah.  That’s the ticket.

Some of the major broadband providers have already spoken out against the plan. “Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation,” Verizon said in an e-mailed statement.

“To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper,” David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast, said in a statement.

But wait; the good part’s coming.

At the crux of the debate over Net neutrality is Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The section, which is more than 100 pages long, regulates how common carriers must conduct business across all forms of communication in order to act “in the public interest.” Net neutrality supporters say that the language is vague and could be used to sidestep a free and open Internet and give ISPs the opportunity to sign deals with Internet companies that would provide for prioritization of traffic.

There we go; the proper buzzphrase is finally out there: “in the public interest.”

Just what is “in the public interest”?

Up until just a few years ago, television stations couldn’t air an editorial unless the “other side” was provided equal time.  This was the “Fairness Doctrine” (see a common thread emerging here?), started in 1949 and rescinded in 1987.  It was decided the “Fairness Doctrine” wasn’t.  And I completely concur.  There was never a “Fairness Doctrine” levied upon any portion of the press, so why broadcast media?

Just what is “in the public interest”?  The FCC via Obama’s regime could capriciously decide one day, buttressed by an Imperial Obaka EO, that the “public interest” in terms of the internet could best be determined by a “fair” and “equal” number of blogs, or podcasts, or a larger number of Liberal instead of Conservative editorials.  Or bloggers could, as was possibly theorized, be “licensed” and their views tracked, monitored, recorded, stored, taxed or subpoenaed not unlike Lois Lerner’s IRS or Houston Mayor Annise Parker.

Let’s get down to additional brass tacks.  Leftist radio and television has, for the most part, been an abject failure.  This has been proven time and again with Leftist talk show hosts who are no more, along with the Leftist radio network Air America which is not just moribund but erased from the planet.  CNN and MSNBC are being beaten by the Weather Channel.  Conservatives have none of their philosophies or leanings supported by federal tax dollars as NPR does.

People vote just not by the ballot box but with their feet and their checkbooks as well.  But because the free market base isn’t there for Leftist networks and opinions, some persons wanted to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine.”  Some like, oh, say, Dennis Kucinich.  This, to me, smacks of the “Fairness Doctrine” re-introduced solely for the control to be acquired therefrom.  And trust me, with regard to Mr Obaka, it is always about control.

[Don’t confuse the Fairness Doctrine — which dealt with “controversial opinions” — with the Equal Time Rule, which dealt with political candidates.]

Here’s another little tidbit for the Libertarians amongst you: whatever the government regulates, taxes and throttles, it also can control.  As in: shut down.  What, question for you, is one of the “first things” Leftists want to do to millions of people around this nation?  That’s correct: remove many of your First Amendment liberties under the guise of “hate speech” or “fear speech” or “Leftist Bullshit Buzzphrase of the Week speech.”  Where is speech still relatively free?  Oh yes, correct; the internet.  You may not like the speech; your ox may get gored now and then, but you’re bigger than that, aren’t you?  Apparently, Leftists are not.  They’d rather the Chinese model of the internet, or that of North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela.

Finally, my own little experience with what “Net Neutrality” truly is.

I was speaking to my neighbor a few weeks ago, and the topic of TV via phone lines instead of satellite came up.  Our internet service is already provided via phone lines in the community.  We reached the topic of internet speeds and his sucked.  So did my female neighbor’s.  My internet speeds, frankly, are faster than my wife’s in the Sacramento Valley.  Why?  Because I pay for the highest speed, that’s why — and my neighbors don’t.  Therefore it’s inherently “unfair” that my speeds are superior to theirs.  There needs to be “equality.”  Or, “Net Neutrality.”

I wrote this back in 2008:

It is the clear and immediate intent of the Demorats, Leftists and Socialists to remove your ability to blog, speak and write fairly and/or hold opinions about events occurring in the United States, in order to keep people more completely in the dark and, moreover, to suppress objection to their agendas and power machinations.

Dissent, discussion, opinions, free and open markets, Demorats clearly indicate, must be stopped.

There you have it.

BZ

 

 Share