Why do Congressional Democrats fear free speech?

[cwo_ghwebb]

Efforts in both chambers of Congress have Republicans wondering why Democrats seem to fear free speech. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) has proposed limitations on how Representatives can post information to the Internet in a time when we should be demanding more transparency, not less. According to a source in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein has begun her own campaign to force Senators to seek permission before communicating over the Internet.

As my source put it, these are the key issues:

• Under their scheme, the Senate Rules Committee would become the Internet speech police for everyone in the Senate.
  • It will be up to the committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate.
  • The Rules Committee thus gets to pick winners and losers among various websites in terms of which are appropriate for use.

• The Rules Committee would get to regulate communication through any site not ending in “senate.gov,” which would include sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

• Further, this could jeopardize guest posts at sites like RedState and Townhall.

• The Rules Committee would require senators to moderate “any public commentary” which would likely mean regulating comments on guest posts and YouTube videos, among other things.

It also raises a number of questions:

• Would this rule extend beyond comments to posts on the site?
  • Would it affect Slatecard & BlogAds?
  • How about something like The Ed Morrissey Show, which has a live chatroom? Would that have to be moderated?

• The Rules Committee would get to act as the “Content KGB” since it can require the removal of content in violation of Senate Rules. And who determines what’s in violation? The Rules Committee.
  • There are no similar controls on any other form of communication with the public, such as publishing op-eds in newspapers or appearing on radio or television.

The sudden interest in silencing Congress goes right along with the brand-new 9% approval rating the Democratic leadership has earned Congress. Imagine how much worse it will get when they gag their members and force an end to communication through policy sites, blogs, and Internet media.

Why do Congressional Democrats fear free speech?

And these are the folks that think the Fairness Doctrine is good policy.

 

[Larry Gude]

If...

And these are the folks that think the Fairness Doctrine is good policy.

...you know anything about the fairness doctrine, you know it's the same thing' censorship. The left don't want free speech and the right is too weak to push the issue.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

...you know anything about the fairness doctrine, you know it's the same thing' censorship. The left don't want free speech and the right is too weak to push the issue.

Guess they think their approval rating at 9% is too high. Wish somebody with power would stand up for us.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh...

Guess they think their approval rating at 9% is too high. Wish somebody with power would stand up for us.

...don't worry. Once President Obama is sworn in, there will be all kinds of GOP'ers who have found that their testicles suddenly descended.

There is just something innate about Republican who reach national office; they're not fighters. They're not principled. They just kinda go about keeping their bigger constituents happy and don't make much trouble. Until there's business to be done being a 'conservative'.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

...don't worry. Once President Obama is sworn in, there will be all kinds of GOP'ers who have found that their testicles suddenly descended.

There is just something innate about Republican who reach national office; they're not fighters. They're not principled. They just kinda go about keeping their bigger constituents happy and don't make much trouble. Until there's business to be done being a 'conservative'.

You musta had a bad day at work, you're on a roll tonight!

The ones who do fight get ostracized by the Party and then can't do much for their constituents.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh...

You musta had a bad day at work, you're on a roll tonight!

The ones who do fight get ostracized by the Party and then can't do much for their constituents.

...there's another FREAKING kitten on the farm and one of my girls is flipping out over the stupid thing and I feel like a total moron for even telling her about it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

The ones who do fight get ostracized by the Party and then can't do much for their constituents.

...it's called PRINCIPLE.

Term limits. Taxes. Foreign policy. Energy. Regulation. Freedom. Liberty. All of that stupid bull####.

Reagan was disdained by the Bush wing of the GOP. Too quaint. Not a realist. Too ideological. You know, too principled.

Power corrupted them, us.

 

[lbreder]

Can I just bring up one reason as to why the internet might be reguloated/blocked?

Do your tax dollars go to pay for your Representative and his/her staff to be surfing the net? How would you feel if they were trading stocks or buying a new TV on ebay instead of legislating? I work on a government system and there is no facebook, myspace, etc. I know for me, (Stenny Hoyer won't do anything I agree with anyway) I don't want my Representative doing anything more than what he was elected to do there.

 

[ImnoMensa]

I think most Senate staffers just delete emails they dont want to read and then send out inane responses that assure you they do want to hear from you. You know they BS the piblic.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Why do they fear free speech? Evil always fears good. The lib's own the tv & print medias but they don't have a firm hold on the radio or internet, but they want it. The fairness doctrine is anything but fair as you folks already know.
If it weren't for a VERY few AM radio shows, we wouldn't have anyplace to get true news reporting from. It's ok for "wrong" to tell us that they are right (in their eyes) but it is not ok for us to tell them they are wrong (in our eyes). See the logic? They do.
Pelosi wants to silence the likes of Michael Savage, Rush, Hannity, LeVin, Liddy, etc., because they constantly speak out against them. No one likes to be told they're wrong all the time even if they are. This is why they want all religious symbols out of government places. They make stealing, adultery & lying look like they are wrong and that makes some government leaders uncomfortable. Imagine if Bill Clinton would have seen the words: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" while he was playing with his harMonica.....

 

[Dixie]

...there's another FREAKING kitten on the farm and one of my girls is flipping out over the stupid thing and I feel like a total moron for even telling her about it.

Is there any way this could be turned into a stray cat thread?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Can I just bring up one reason as to why the internet might be reguloated/blocked?

Do your tax dollars go to pay for your Representative and his/her staff to be surfing the net? How would you feel if they were trading stocks or buying a new TV on ebay instead of legislating? I work on a government system and there is no facebook, myspace, etc. I know for me, (Stenny Hoyer won't do anything I agree with anyway) I don't want my Representative doing anything more than what he was elected to do there.

The legislation is about 'posting information'. The Rules Committee would get to sanction websites deemed 'appropriate'. The Congressional Members then have to 'moderate' the public discourse, which is impossible. If a Member wants to discuss policy with the public, why not? Sure the Members will abuse the medium, just like they do now on radio and television. But if the Rules Committee says only DailyPOS is an approved website and FreeRepublic is not (for news dissemination from the Members), we can pretty much tell which side of an argument will be presented.

And you thought Vrai's job was a pain!

 

[RadioPatrol]

because nasty republicans cannot release the facts, about what the Socialists are up to ....

that is why they want to reinstate the fairness doctrine ..... because for the last 20 yrs RUSH and others have been poking a finger in the eye of Socialists in this country and what they are trying to do .....



turn this country into a Socialist Prison Camp .... from taking our guns, so we cannot fight back, silencing decent, to raising taxes on average folks to pay for welfare, and environmental scams ... running off business except what they own or control ...

basically taking this country down to a 3rd world cesspool level ... so they can control everything

 

[Pete]

Why do they fear free speech? Simple, it is harder to reprogram sheep without dissenting opinions screwing it up.

 

[chernmax]

Why do they fear free speech? Simple, it is harder to reprogram sheep without dissenting opinions screwing it up.

BINGO, we have a winner!!!

 

[ImnoMensa]

If there was fairness in politics the Democrats would have to change their name to the National Socialist party, or is that name already taken.?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

If there was fairness in politics the Democrats would have to change their name to the National Socialist party, or is that name already taken.?

They hold those ideals, but can't announce that's what they truly want as they would lose millions of voters. But (I think Glenn Beck said it), they accomplish their goals by incrementalism.

Like MADD, they really want Prohibition but won't say that publicly.

 

[SamSpade]

I admit, I really do not understand the rationale. I've read remarks from the Democratic leadership over the Fairness Doctrine, and you'd think that right-wing radio is the new red scare - a disease insinuating itself dangerously into the minds of our young through propaganda. On the face of it, it just sounds like fascism - that there are ideas that must not be allowed to propagate freely out there. It's the flip side of religious nuts who oppose certain things in the public domain for the sake of morality or decency.

It's not the conservatives or Republicans who typically grouse over political correctness. They're the ones usually making jokes about how absurd it is. But political correctness - not being allowed to SAY certain things because it might be offensive to someone - is censorship.

Every person I've ever known who has gone on record wishing, demanding or hoping that someone would be silenced has been liberal.

It still goes back to what I've said before about liberalism. They see themselves as centrists. Conservatism in their eyes IS extremist, period. They aren't on the other side of the spectrum in their eyes. They don't acknowledge "left-wing" or left-wing extremism. So in typical fascist sentiment, their view is the common view and everyone else are kooks - who don't merit tolerance. They would no more embrace tolerance for the right than they would a gang of screeching baboons.

And so this is where I don't understand them - so what? I don't get the idea of wearing the mantle of tolerance as a badge of honor, but clearly remain intolerant of any views other than their own, which IS intolerance by definition. To love freedom of speech, you have to love everyone's freedom of speech. As I said before, so what? People on here have observed, the best way to deal with extremists is to give them an open mike and let the world see how crazy they are. You only give them respectability by shutting them down - IF they're really crazy.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

I admit, I really do not understand the rationale. I've read remarks from the Democratic leadership over the Fairness Doctrine, and you'd think that right-wing radio is the new red scare - a disease insinuating itself dangerously into the minds of our young through propaganda. On the face of it, it just sounds like fascism - that there are ideas that must not be allowed to propagate freely out there. It's the flip side of religious nuts who oppose certain things in the public domain for the sake of morality or decency.

It's not the conservatives or Republicans who typically grouse over political correctness. They're the ones usually making jokes about how absurd it is. But political correctness - not being allowed to SAY certain things because it might be offensive to someone - is censorship.

Every person I've ever known who has gone on record wishing, demanding or hoping that someone would be silenced has been liberal.

It still goes back to what I've said before about liberalism. They see themselves as centrists. Conservatism in their eyes IS extremist, period. They aren't on the other side of the spectrum in their eyes. They don't acknowledge "left-wing" or left-wing extremism. So in typical fascist sentiment, their view is the common view and everyone else are kooks - who don't merit tolerance. They would no more embrace tolerance for the right than they would a gang of screeching baboons.

And so this is where I don't understand them - so what? I don't get the idea of wearing the mantle of tolerance as a badge of honor, but clearly remain intolerant of any views other than their own, which IS intolerance by definition. To love freedom of speech, you have to love everyone's freedom of speech. As I said before, so what? People on here have observed, the best way to deal with extremists is to give them an open mike and let the world see how crazy they are. You only give them respectability by shutting them down - IF they're really crazy.

When facts aren't on your side of the debate you must demonize the opposition. Attack the messenger or shut the messenger up. There is no valid viewpoint other than the socialist agenda. Anyone who opposes their viewpoint is ignorant, bitter, racist, homophobe, angry, white male, gun-loving, religious kook, or a host of other ad-hominem attacks.

Personally, I think it stems from a defiance of social norms that is a result of being told so many times by their parents they were 'special' when they came home from school sobbing after being teased for wearing culots.

 

[RadioPatrol]

. On the face of it, it just sounds like fascism - that there are ideas that must not be allowed to propagate freely out there. It's the flip side of religious nuts who oppose certain things in the public domain for the sake of morality or decency.

Have you read "Liberal Fascism" .....