Government "talk police"

Government "talk police" is not a good thing

If the general public can't quite grasp the dangers inherent in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, either in whole or in part, then maybe they will get it if they look at the latest political scandal that is surrounding the Governor of Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich.

If you read the special prosecutors criminal complaint, you would think that this Governor, his wife and chief of staff were auditioning for the Jerry Springer show, especially the foul language used by all involved.

However, as you read further in the 78 page document, you will see on page 43 that the good Governor wanted to silence his local newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, because a certain editorial writer had written derogatory pieces on the Governor and his administration. The complaint clearly shows how the power of Government could easily silence the freedom of speech.

Think for a moment about the possible abuse of power that could occur when regulators in Washington, DC, not the general public, decided what content or point of view could be aired over our radio waves. If that isn't the Federal Government regulating our freedom of speech, I'm not sure what else you could call it. To me, having the "talk police" insist on certain content be aired, notwithstanding the views of the listeners, is precisely robbing us of our freedom of speech.

You see, we exercise our freedom of speech by choosing to listening to, or not listen to, certain points of view. If content is going to be regulated in Washington, DC, and not by listener, then our freedom of speech has been silenced. Let's not let one of our most basic rights under the constitution be stripped away from us because we are asleep at the switch. Having our government be the "talk police" can never be a good thing!

Stay tuned,

Elizabeth

The New York Times Judgment?

It is truly hard for me to believe that The New York Times made the conscience decision to publish the story revealing the United States Government classified program via the CIA & Treasury Department to monitor international financial transactions to help win the war on terror. Mr. Bill Keller, Executive Editor said that, "Revealing the program wouldn't harm the national security" and thus gave the go ahead to publish the story. I didn't know that Mr. Keller had worked for the CIA and Treasury Department and thus had the proper knowledge to know if harm would result from revealing the classified program? As a matter of fact, Mr. Keller's own resume reveals he has worked only in the journalism industry and has never worked for the CIA, the Treasury Department or for that matter the Department of Defense. Maybe when the editors of the New York Times have to make similar decisions in the future, they should apply the "Abe Lincoln test". Simply take a piece of paper and draw a line straight down the middle, vertically. Now, in the left column, write who would benefit from publishing the story in question. In the right column, write who would be harmed from the publishing of the story. If the word TERRORIST, (remember those folks who cut off American heads on TV), ever appear in the left column, please do not publish the story. Publishing such a story means you would be aiding and abetting the enemy.
Stay tuned,
Elizabeth