« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Beck, Rush, and The War on Freedom of the Press/Speech: Real or Hyperbole?

By: Ausonius (Diary)  |  August 27th, 2009 at 06:56 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

RedStaters know that Communist theory, along with any totalitarian theory of control, involves early control of the mass media, with the idea being that control of the “masses” is thereby facilitated, if you control what they see and hear.

We already know about the bias of the MSM toward leftist politics.

What some of us might not know is the back-door to stifling dissent, to limiting our freedom of speech/press is wide open.  The Orwellian term is “Localism” which is code for government stifling of conservative dissent.

FCC “Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd is on record as believing that fairness (defined by a leftist) is more important than freedom of speech, which he finds over-rated.  ”Localism” is the way the FCC intends to shut down conservative dissent:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/06/new-fcc-chief-diversity-officer-co-wrote-liberal-groups-structural-imb

From Newsbusters:

“Localism” is a nebulous FCC regulatory requirement that radio stations must meet to get and keep their broadcast licenses.  How it is defined and enforced is wide open to the interpretation of whomever is doing the enforcing.  It can mean something benign like airing local public service announcements, or it can be used as a weapon by activists to punish, harangue and ultimately shut down stations they don’t like.

In a follow-up essay to the CAP report entitled “Forget the Fairness Doctrine,” Lloyd specifically instructs liberal activists to do the latter – use the “localism” requirement to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC.   The FCC would then assess these stations fines, with the money going to (very liberal) public broadcasting…

The other part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads (i.e. Rush Limbaugh fans, meant here by Lloyd to more broadly refer to fans of all conservative talk) upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don’t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.

Given that the MSM is complicit to spread NObama’s propaganda, or to remain silent in face of abuses and power-grabs by ACORN and other Fifth Columns, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and others are asking us to spread the alarm like Paul Reveres of the 21st century.

I have spoken with too many survivors of Communism about how their countries were taken over: too many people just could not believe that such overt – or covert – power grabs would actually happen. 1930′s Germans really could not believe anything ominous was portended when Jews for some reason had a 10:00 P.M. curfew. And would you really get out and protest just because Jews could not see late movies?

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • JadedByPolitics

    the 80′s when Reagan had to kill it is the internet. We will NEVER go back to the PRAVDA media ever again. I do believe these tools in DC forget that 59 million of us did NOT vote for Obama and we have a voice!

  • ColdWarrior

    For example, I’m listening to Mark Levin right now. I’m in Arizona. He’s in New York. His local “over the airways” broadcast here is three hours delayed rather than live. So I listen over the net. Live.

    I know I’m stating the obvious and preaching to the choir here. Almost everyone has access to the internet and podcasts. Anyone with a PC and an internet connection and a few minutes can get whatever radio information they want. And just about whenever they want. Nobody other than leftists listen to Air America and the drivel and claptrap spewed by the left on the radio and on the boob tube because anyone with an open mind can see the drivel and claptrap for the childish nonsense it is.

    Thanks for spreading the word on these idiotic “localism” arguments for what they are: shakedowns and an attempt to stamp out conservative talk radio. Yes, our Party must fight this.

    ColdWarrior

    • Ausonius

      on Internet grass-roots politics.

      But it is possible that NObama may have unwittingly catalyzed the Conservatives by threatening to shut down our outlets under the Orwellian disguise of “fairness.”

      Other sites like NewsMax and FreeRepublic seem to be growing, and one sees conservatives like Mark Lewin with books at the #1 spot for weeks.

      I know I am energized like never before because of this threat!

      I suspect many others here feel a proselytizing urge to convert the lukewarm or the misguided and stop the Leftism.

      Many thanks to Cold Warrior and Jaded By Politics for their comments!

  • Jaimo

    While I was at my Patriot Alliance group meeting, i found out that ACORN has purchased 8 radio stations with our tax dollars. Can anybody find out more information on this. I wasn’t given details, but the man running the meeting informed us of this.

    • Ausonius

      Here is an example:

      http://www.hillcountryclinic.org/kkrn.html

      I believe Glenn Beck mentioned ACORN bought one on Long Island, but that might not be quite right.

  • Rod_Patrick

    Only the blind or idiot will answer otherwise.

    • ColdWarrior

      This video depicting what happened on public school grounds where Rep. Jim Moran and his sidekick Howie Dean appeared for a town hall meeting pretty much sums up what we may come to expect from Teleprompter Boy and his ilk:

      Thank you.

      ColdWarrior

  • Ausonius

    About 6 weeks ago, the HuffPo carried an apologia for ACORN, which claims that ACORN voter-fraud “scandals” were invented by the right-wing.

    The article mentions two “non-profit” radio stations owned by ACORN, as it details the self-inflicted damage done by the corrupt antics of Wade Rathke and his brother Dale:

    An excerpt:

    “In addition to chapters in 103 cities in 38 states, ACORN’s family of organizations include two union locals, two non-profit southern-based radio stations (KNON and KABF), several publications (including the magazine Social Policy), a nonprofit group that builds affordable housing and provides homeownership counseling (ACORN Housing), a nonprofit law office, and a variety of other vehicles that supported its direct organizing and issue campaigns, such as the Financial Justice Center and the Living Wage Resource Center.”

    See:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/acorn-under-the-microscop_b_112491.html

    If you cannot bear to visit HuffPo, the article of course says that corruption in ACORN must be excused when you see all the good things they do! It also says in essence that Halliburton is worse!

    • Ausonius

      James Murdoch, son of Rupert, gave a speech on the BBC’s increasing control of the airwaves with its subsequent leftist bias.

      http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6814178.ece

      And excerpt:

      “Ofcom, the communications regulator, was criticised by Mr Murdoch for intervening

  • Ausonius

    See:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

    An excerpt about this latest assault on Freedom of Speech:

    “Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

    They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. “

    • Karina

      We need to be very diligent that this or anything like this is not slipped into a seemingly harmless bill and mistakenly overlooked.

      Good God, where are we headed?

    • janis

      2010. They mean to cut off access to knowledge of the real intent of what they’re doing and return us to 1987 or so. Before the internet, before Rush Limbaugh, we will return to the Dark Ages if they shut off both.

      Or so they think. It is impossible not to realize that this bunch will not stop. They know we hate what they’re doing and they don’t care. Everything they move toward is the completion of control. Total control over every moment of our lives and every detail of our physical being.

      They are everything they accused George W. Bush of being yet he never was. Every monster they conceived, they claimed was on the Right, and yet it is they who are monstrous. They will announce some bogus crisis, seize what they please in the name of national security, announce whatever takeovers necessary…..

      ……voila, Venezuela.

    • cclive

      which if you consider the internet as a crucial part of our infrastructure this is highly needed. If a foreign group grabs hold of a major telecom network and then uses it to launch broader attacks thats obviously a problem. Its akin to shutting down airports on 9/11.

      • Ausonius

        That is the problem! According to the report, the bill is vague (deliberately?) on how the chief executive would define a “so-called emergency.”

        YOU can trust the government if you want!

        I will not! Like the old saying: “You can trust the Communists to be Communists.”

        • cclive

          and sloppily written, isn’t it still a draft? but it needs to start somewhere. Not doing anything would be utterly irresponsible,

        • Achance

          Rahmbo et al. are just waiting for something that they can call enough of an emergency to try their hand at wielding some of the headier police powers of the federal government. Thus far the pig flu hasn’t worked out, terrorists are still at least a little afraid of us, global warming isn’t warming enough, the hurricane season sucks so far, but something is bound to turn up so Comrade Obama can declare martial law and see if the military really will act against American citizens; it is a necessary test in any revolution.

          • E Pluribus Unum

            I could not agree more. They keep coming up snake-eyes, but there’s nothing like persistence.

          • Aaron Gardner

            You read these guys so well.

          • Achance

            I read almost ALL their books; by the last years of my career, you really didn’t have to know much about labor and employment law or negotiation strategy, you just had to understand Trotsky, Mao, and Alinsky and know how to set the defense.

      • Aaron Gardner
        • cclive

          I just don’t subscribe to tinfoil hat wearing.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • cclive

            its just another way of saying I’m not going to get all paranoid about this stifling dissent. But our cyber infrastructure is currently being attacked/probed for attack so it is a very very real problem.

            http://www.defencetalk.com/chinese-russian-hackers-probing-us-power-grid-report-17662/

          • Aaron Gardner

            so put away your pointy stick and read what I wrote downthread if you want to know my position.

          • cclive

            about the possibility of stifling dissent than the current attacks on our infrastructure.

          • Aaron Gardner
        • The_Gadfly

          As has been proven in Russia successful invasion of Georgia, a cyber attack launched simultaneously with a military attack on a country can have devastating effects. But as has been proven in Iran and China, allowing government an avenue to control the Internet is also a pathway to controlling speech.

          Some such authority must be given to the government to act to protect the integrity of the nation, and I do not believe that it will be possible to precisely specify the parameters which would necessitate its invocation within the context of the authorization. Still the parameters should be less vague rather than more vague, and both time frames and review processes ought to be expounded. The root of the problem of course is in one of the founders observations that our constitution cannot endure except under a moral people*. And at this particular point in time, most of us on this site do not regard the current regime as having any such people.

          * I’ve most often heard it attributed to Madison, but my quick Google search did not find the exact quote. The one which I found that seems closest is:

          To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.

          http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison_4.html

          Any comments or direction to a more reliable source would be appreciated.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

            I think that is the one you were thinking of. link

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            I’m pretty sure we stopped being a moral nation sometimes after Rap because the most popular form of music and the president got a hummer in the oval office.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • The_Gadfly

            Part of Adams’ point is that you can’t have a government that permits liberty without a moral people. All other forms of government are less tolerant of liberty than a representative democracy, but even given a representative democracy, unless the people are moral you will still wind up with an intolerant government.

          • The_Gadfly

            I had the right thought, just the wrong person. That’s it.

      • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

        Yes, there could well be a legitimate need to cut off private servers from the internet as defense against an cybterattack. This could also be part of an attack on internal dissent. Sorting it out depends on two issues:

        1) the actual language of the law – is it crafted narrowly to defend against an outside attack, or does it give overly broad authorization

        2) the trustworthiness of those writing this legistlation – part of this is a matter of judgment based on prior actions, and the more critical part is whether this law is the subject of examination and debate, or whether the effort is made to sneak into some legislation when no one is looking and without discussion.

        So the question is, now that this proposed law has been brought to the attention of people and legislators, will there be open discussion and efforts made to meet objections by more careful writing, or will this just be rammed into the body politic under cover of darkness.

        So far, the early signs do not appear to favor open discussion.

        • Ausonius

          “the trustworthiness of those writing this legislation …”

          Given their demonization of conservative dissent at townhalls, the attacks on conservative talk radio/TV, etc. we cannot trust them to limit their use of such a law to a terrorist attack.

        • Aaron Gardner

          Instead of cutting off the internet to millions of Americans who pay for that service, why don’t they focus on closed networks that could be spun up as a backup for critical systems like the electric grid?

          The best network defense is one inch of air.

          Instead of trying to control the masses, simply insulate yourself from them.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            I’m not an expert of network architecture, but it seems to me that the only way to prevent cyberattack is to have computers hardwired to each other with completely dedicated and inaccesible wiring with no other physical portals in or out of those computers. Is that what you mean by a “closed network”? Otherwise, please explain.

            I get your larger point of securing critical communications within the government rather than tampering with the internet, but am not sure how one would set up this parallel “closed network”.

          • Aaron Gardner

            It would be a completely different fiber ring that would provide network connectivity for all critical systems, it would be encrypted, it could be sent over longer distances using ku-band or C-band satellites.

            You could have it all set up to transfer over with only a few commands to a group of routers.

            The biggest obstacle would be the infrastructure, but he could use the until now unspent stimulus money on it. Heck, it would probably be better than the Interstate Highway project was.

            You would also have fewer single points of failure to monitor when you have switched over to the backup network.

            The point though is, like you said CT, that the focus of this legislation is on taking something away from the populace for it’s own protection, with no regard to an alternative approach. Those are actions which show character. We each make our own judgement with regard to the Administrations intentions and to what extreme any Administration may push the envelope.

            I just don’t trust most of them.

          • The_Gadfly

            but it doesn’t address the issue of getting the public internet back up and functioning. And at this point, a functioning public internet is as much of a national security issue as the actual protection of military assets (not that The Big 0 seems all that intent on protecting military assets in the first place). I can envision a scenario in which by taking a large segment of the domestic internet service offline, the rest of the domestic internet service would be returned. Then you would have to work on resolving the issues with the segment that was taken offline. Even at that, we are still left with the issues of non-domestic attacks. Frankly, I don’t think anyone anywhere in the current regime is capable of engaging in the sort of detailed, long range thinking that is necessary to grapple with the problem.

            We are in agreement the most fundamental problem is the lack of trust, and that there probably are no technical solutions which step around that issue. And I’m not trying to claim that proposals should not be shot down on those grounds. What I am saying is that it is a potential problem, and we ought not close the door to dealing with that problem because the current regime is untrustworthy.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Two different issues.

            I read the Cnet article and latched on to the justifications they were using for these powers, which was to ensure critical networks were preserved. You are talking about the people themselves being attacked, or being used to attack.

            Even in that case the prudent measure would be to fall back on a separate networks and then work to isolate where the traffic is originating from. Limited instances of routers being blocked or even just specific ports would be sufficient.

            There is no need for broad authority to seize entire chunks of the network and kill them.

          • The_Gadfly

            You can isolate some computers networks for certain types of work, such as code breaking at the NSA, but with the integration of the internet into our governmental and commercial institutions, it has become necessary to protect the public network as well. In a lot of ways, the original DARPA concept for the internet (always permitting some type of communication between nodes even though it might be delayed) has been turned on its head, and the current internet is dependent on certain high value point to point connections. My landlord/housemate works as a civilian employee of the military with frequent requirements to handle materials with varying levels of communication. But her job still depends a great deal on access to, and the availability of the public network.

            In point of fact, one of the items of concerns about cyber security, is that for reasons of convenience, some utilities which you would otherwise think would be on closed networks, are on public ones instead. I’m thinking specifically of power plants, but I’m sure there are others as well.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Trust me, these networks exist. I’ve worked on them.

        • The_Gadfly

          As we see in the current state of affairs, an attack could as well be launched by a domestic group. Such an attack would also require a response to protect liberties. As I noted above too narrow and there will be no authority to stop actual attacks, too broad invites willful abuse. But the fundamental issue remains the trustworthiness of governmental authorities making the decisions on when to act. This may be the gravest injury the left has inflicted upon our civil society: that we no longer trust those we elect to make precisely these judgment based decisions.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I don’t want to write all of that again, but I think we are pretty much in agreement.

    • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

      you mean a self proclaimed socialist is behind a mad grab for power and censorship? Whodda thunk it?

  • louisiana

    and blogs are absolutely killing their movement. I, like others, have been
    waiting for the back door move. The question is, when push comes to shove,
    what is our plan of action? Will we have to fear our own police? The military?
    To whom will they be more loyal–the president or the constitution?