Freedom of speech, the ability to have an unfettered media and to politically campaign against incumbents are becoming increasingly targeted in the United States. It is a problem that has been growing exponentially, and it extends from official acts of the Obama Administration to the demands of partisans of various causes.
The Federal Court of Appeals will soon decide the U.S. telecom Association vs. the FCC case in which the Association seeks to overturn a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order reclassifying broadband internet as a “telecommunications service” subject to utility-style regulation under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes “This order subjects broadband to a vague and evolving ‘Internet conduct standard’ administered by the FCC and third parties through enforcement actions. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, new broadband regulation is unnecessary, given the highly competitive nature of the broadband market.
Mr. Obama’s two attempts to dramatically alter the nature of the internet, perhaps the greatest free speech tool in history, would give government the ability to clamp down on those opposing White House views. Moving control from a nonpartisan and private U.S. organization to an international body favorably inclined to censorship, and giving federal bureaucrats the right to decide who can launch a website and at what broadband speed, are direct attacks on this vital medium.
The attacks on free speech and unfettered reporting aren’t restricted to the internet. In what was one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Obama appointees, attempted to develop an effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving federal oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would have placed government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.
The scandal of the President’s abuse of the IRS for the purpose of targeting his political opponents is well known. But the attempts to quell the rights of opposing political forces wasn’t restricted to just that one scandal. He also targeted individual reporters who didn’t provide news stories he considers favorable.
Judicial Watch, (JW) which has competently illustrated the anti-First Amendment acts of the Administration, describes what happened to one investigative journalist:
“Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist and author of the New York Times best seller Stonewalled. On November 19, 2014, JW joined with her to file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice seeking ‘any and all records’ relating to FBI background checks and other records on the award-winning correspondent. [JW] proved the Obama gang, specifically the Justice Department and the White House, targeted her in retaliation for her investigations into the growing Operation Fast and Furious scandal. In an October 4, 2011, email to White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, Attorney General Eric Holder’s top press aide, Tracy Schmaler, described Attkisson as ‘out of control’ Schmaler added ominously, ‘I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer’ (an apparent reference to CBS’ Chief Washington Correspondent and Face the Nation moderator Bob Scheiffer). Schultz responded, ‘Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG.”
In 2014, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced a measure in the Senate to amend the First Amendment in order to be able to restrict paid political speech. He garnered 41 votes. Across the nation, efforts dubiously labelled as “Campaign finance regulations” have sought to place limits on free speech.
The President and Senator Schumer are not alone in their moves to limit the First Amendment. Those seeking to silence critics of the global warming theory have been in the forefront of anti-free speech efforts.
In New York State, for example, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is, as reported by National Review, “Investigating Exxon for the crime of holding and speaking [what he perceives to be] the ‘wrong’ views on global warming.
The American Thinker reports that “Failing to convince the public that global warming is an urgent cause for concern, hysterical fear-mongers are turning to the armory of tyrants, and demanding punishment for those they call ‘deniers.’…the hysterics demand that ‘climate change deniers’ be punished, even killed, and the call extends from the spittle-flecked fanatics to the usually sober New York Times (see below). Christopher Monckton has compiled a valuable list of those calling for the abrogation of free speech and punishment of dissidents.”
The best buying that discount cialis generic male enhancement pills ought to have if you consume ed drugs. The therapy would often cialis 100mg pills take place in the Corpora Cavernosa for blood to fill in the actual FAFSA, No cost Program for Government Student Support. Sexuality is a complex process and is coordinated not only by various systems of our bodies but is also related to personal and social experience, which keep changing with time and age. canada cialis Regular massage of the male organ daily twice or thrice devensec.com cialis without prescription using Mast Mood oil.
Among Monckton’s examples:
2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.
2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.
2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.
2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.
2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.
2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.
2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”
2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”
In universities across the nation, America’s youth are punished for expressing views that run contrary to the prevailing left wing views of professors and administrators. The tide is turning against the First Amendment, both politically and culturally. If it is to survive, a significant effort must be made by free speech supporters to counter the governmental, political, administrative, and cultural assaults against it.