Why You Should Fear the Liberals: The First Amendment Part 1
When I say liberals, I don’t mean every liberal. There are some liberals with the best of intentions, and while they are wrong, they want what is good. By liberal, I mean the liberals who dominate Congress at the moment.
I have one reason, and one only. And that is that they wish to ignore the First Amendment. And so I begin my discussion of said amendment.
The First Amendment is by far the most important amendment in the Bill of Rights. While other amendments, such as the 10th, have been ignored by the federal government, or even used improperly, for years, perhaps none has been debated and misconstrued quite so much as the 1st. But it has never been ignored. And now Congressional Democrats seek to do so.
Of course, if you pay any attention to the news at all, you know that I refer to this attempt to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Within the course of the last couple weeks, the fervor has increased, partially fueled by the way talk radio led in the assassination of the woefully inadequate Immigration Bill. Congressional Democrats have raged that their pet could be shot down so efficiently and so massively by the media. The good old days were when they dominated, and twenty, maybe even ten years ago, such a thing would not have happened. It bugs the liberals in power to no end that there would be an alternative voice out there, alert and ready to take out anything improper that is on the liberal agenda (this of course includes almost the entire and whole Congressional Democrat pie). So they attempt to re-institute the “Fairness Doctrine,” which forces anyone on the air, whether television or radio, to give equal time to an opposing viewpoint. Meaning, basically, that the only show the government would not put out of business would be Fox’s Hannity and Colmes.
The problem? Well, aside from the logistical nightmare it would create, the problem is two-fold. First of all, who determines that the show truly does have opposing viewpoints? Since I used Hannity and Colmes already, I’ll use it again. I’ve heard several liberals insist that Colmes is a centrist. (Anybody who’s being honest will admit that’s not true. Colmes himself said just the other night that he is a liberal on the show during an interview with Newt Gingrich.) Some government bureaucrat in the FCC could say that Colmes is a centrist, therefore, the show does not really have opposing viewpoints, and Fox would be ordered to put a liberal on the show. So you would end up with (in my opinion) two liberals to one conservative. The fact is, where a person is on the scale and chart of ideologies is more a matter of opinion than anything. The government can’t set up a mandated test and make everybody in broadcast media take it to determine their place on the ideological chart, and even if it did, the test would still be subject to the subjectivities of the people writing it.
The larger problem, however, is that such a bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Abridging, according to Webster’s 1812, is “shortening, lessening, depriving, debarring.” The Fairness Doctrine certainly does at least two of those, by depriving people of their right to speak their opinion simply because the perceived opposing opinion is not present. A similar concept has been tried in college athletics with the ridiculous Title IX, which prevents schools from sending more funding to or having more programs of male sports than female. Many male teams that are smaller and less popular sports, but still important to those that play them and the niche of fans they create, have been shut down because there was no female interest and not enough females will play either that sport or another. This, however, is far more serious and far-reaching. Such a bill could be used in almost any way imaginable, ending one of the greatest parts of this nation and her freedom.
In short, we are in a battle for our Freedom of Speech, as we have been in a battle for Freedom of Religion for years. Yet we are not even cognizant of this fact. We continue to innocently waltz our way through life, losing precious time and more importantly, precious freedom. And it’s Congressional liberals that are trying to take this from us. That’s why you should fear them.

The Dems are trampling free speech wherever they can – the Fairness Doctrine, the grassroots lobbying bill, and hate speech laws. And they’ve barely been in power for half a year!
Neil
June 30, 2007 at 8:18 am
P.S. Glad you’re back!
Neil
June 30, 2007 at 8:18 am
[...] Clark Link to Article newt gingrich Why You Should Fear the Liberals: The First Amendment Part 1 » [...]
University Update - Newt Gingrich - Why You Should Fear the Liberals: The First Amendment Part 1
June 30, 2007 at 9:01 am
Democrats are interested in free speech only if it is “good” free speech – that is “liberal” free speech.
God forbid free speech advocates, let us say, strong border security – that is not “good”, that is “bad” speech, which could originate only from people who are “racist” and “nativist”.
Liberals are the only group of people who think that if you do not agree with them, you commit some sort of crime!
This is moronic – I am a LEGAL immigrant fro strong border security – and these people label me “nativist”?????
armilnov
June 30, 2007 at 11:35 am
[...] This is an extended comment left on Wit or Wisdom. [...]
Why Liberals want to destroy Freedom of Speech « Golos - The Voice
June 30, 2007 at 11:45 am
It never ceases to amaze me that the liberals who are supposed to be protecting our rights are so eager to deprive us. And having an argument with one of their ilk can be like banging your head against a wall. I don’t recommend trying it unless you have a helmet or knee high boots.
Almost any discussion I have had about free speech with liberals goes the same way. If some dumb kid has a sign that says “bong hits for Jesus” or decides to burn the American flag his speech should be protected (and I agree with that) BUT when it comes to any issue of substantial speech (i.e. should I be able to contribute unlimited money to the campaign of my choice, should I be aloud to pray in public at a graduation ceremony, should I be aloud to offend minority groups, etc.) liberal will give the same response. “Well you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Whether it be offending homosexuals by dropping the F-bomb or Kramer dropping the N-bomb (both are tasteless actions but entirely protected speech) countless liberals will compare this with shouting fire in a crowded theater. And get used to the crowded theater argument since they will use it to justify ANY encroachment on free speech.
I have a very simply definition of free speech and it’s limitations. “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech…” And aside from the very few exceptions to this allowed during the time of the framers (slander and libel) I take the word SHALL MAKE NO LAW very seriously.
totaltransformation
June 30, 2007 at 12:59 pm
ah! the flag-burning topic again connected with freedom of speech! I agree that it’s a good example of the inconsistency found in carrying out the provisions of the first amendment. However, what exactly does the first amendment say? does it mean that anything goes as long as it is speech?
joyousthirst
July 3, 2007 at 9:00 pm