On the "Freedom" of speech... well, I have to say that I'm concerned about the protection of Free Speech.
In times of war, speech (and the press in general) is usually more limited by government. That's a given, though with the state of information technologies, more cats are leaving their bags than ever before.
What concerns me the most is the practice of one party stifling speech that another disagrees with. One of the strong points of a Free Society is the aspect of debate. Without contentious speech, there is a limitation on dissent, and without dissent, you end up with a totalitarian state.
There are a number of ranking Democrats in US Congress who favor the re-instation of the ironically-named Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine essentially forced anyone with a broadcast license to present both sides of contentious issues. First off, since when does the government fully run all content of privately-owned radio stations?
Another issue lies in the recent banning of "controversial" radio host Michael "Savage" Weiner, who was put on a list og people "banned" from the U.K. Really? They have other people who have been terrorists who have been let back in, and Savage has never advocated violence. And yet he was on a list with true terrorists, murderers, and Neo-Nazis.
Of course, the backlash has been huge. Recent polls in Britian have shown eighty percent of Brits oppose the ban.
The issue is not the content of the speech, but the right of people to hold and advocate views that others don't agree on. Old-school liberals used to say, "I disagree with your speech, but I will defend your right to say it." What happened to that viewpoint?
No comments:
Post a Comment