The First Amendment is under attack from within this country, and from without.
The ridiculous internal attempt is to reinstate the outmoded 1949 Fairness Doctrine. Introduced in 1949, stoked in the post-WWII fear of communism, it's now a dinosaur of a doctrine, the bones of which we haven't rid ourselves.
Conservatives believe a revival of the doctrine, which requires contrasting viewpoints be presented, could be used by a liberal administration to strangle radio talk show hosts. Radio station owners worry about losing listeners and advertising revenue that conservative shows bring in.
New alternative media exploded after the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. FCC deemed the doctrine to be unconstitutional in view of the many media voices in the marketplace.
The FCC stated, " ... the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues..."
But Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.) told Human Events political editor John Gizzi on June 24 she supported the Fairness Doctrine revival.
Pelosi admitted her intent to prevent the Broadcaster's Freedom Act from reaching the Senate floor for a vote. The bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the Fairness Doctrine received 300 votes in the House last year.
Consider the new explosion of voices in the air with the Internet, satellite and cable today. Congress is wasting their time and our money trying to control American speech - and our beliefs.
Pelosi, Slaughter and Fairness Doctrine defenders should take a lesson from the Hong Kong government whose "authorities are aware that old approaches to controlling information aren't working." (Wall Street Journal, July 7)
China is home to 223 million Internet users, nearly as many as the U.S. (more than a third of Americans read news on the Web).
Chinese bloggers use cell phones and Twitter, a public instant-messaging feed, to post on-the-spot news faster than censors can block it.
"When mainstream Chinese Web sites began deleting posts on the issue [of a rape and death cover-up by officials], some bloggers turned to technical workarounds, including writing their posts backwards and reposting material that had been taken down elsewhere.
"Exposed to online postings that sprout up and multiply before they can be censored, the [Chinese] public has come to expect more transparency and responsiveness from the government." (WSJ, July 7)
Americans have too.
In 1964, opponents of civil rights were filing libel suits to silence news organizations that exposed state officials' refusal to enforce federal civil rights laws. The Supreme Court (New York Times v. Sullivan) established that journalists must be free to report on newsworthy events unless they recklessly or maliciously publish falsehoods.
Now Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) say America is "engaged in another great struggle - this time against Islamist terror - and again the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech." (WSJ, July 14)
They say English courts have become a popular place for individuals with alleged connections to terrorist activity to file libel suits against American authors. In England, disputed statements are presumed to be false unless proven otherwise. In America, disputers are required to prove statements are libelous.
In one suit, in 2003, Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 judgment against U.S. scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote in her book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It" that Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden. English courts permitted Mahfouz to file his libel suit, because 23 copies were bought online by English residents.
Mahfouz has filed or threatened to file at least 30 other suits in England.
"These suits intimidate and even silence writers and publishers," Specter and Lieberman wrote in the Wall Street Journal, July 14.
Fear of lawsuits have forced publishers of American authors to cancel publications (Random House U.K.: "House of Bush, House of Saud," 2004) or to destroy all available copies (Cambridge University Press: "Alms for Jihad," a book on terrorism funding, 2007).
Specter and Lieberman have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, a Senate companion to a House bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.).
The bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. It would not shield those who recklessly or maliciously print false information, but would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards.
It also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If an American jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award treble damages.
Perhaps Specter and Lieberman, both Jewish descendants, can give American Senators some insight into what the loss of a God-given right can do to a culture, regardless from which government it comes.
The ridiculous internal attempt is to reinstate the outmoded 1949 Fairness Doctrine. Introduced in 1949, stoked in the post-WWII fear of communism, it's now a dinosaur of a doctrine, the bones of which we haven't rid ourselves.
Conservatives believe a revival of the doctrine, which requires contrasting viewpoints be presented, could be used by a liberal administration to strangle radio talk show hosts. Radio station owners worry about losing listeners and advertising revenue that conservative shows bring in.
New alternative media exploded after the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. FCC deemed the doctrine to be unconstitutional in view of the many media voices in the marketplace.
The FCC stated, " ... the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues..."
But Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.) told Human Events political editor John Gizzi on June 24 she supported the Fairness Doctrine revival.
Pelosi admitted her intent to prevent the Broadcaster's Freedom Act from reaching the Senate floor for a vote. The bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the Fairness Doctrine received 300 votes in the House last year.
Consider the new explosion of voices in the air with the Internet, satellite and cable today. Congress is wasting their time and our money trying to control American speech - and our beliefs.
Pelosi, Slaughter and Fairness Doctrine defenders should take a lesson from the Hong Kong government whose "authorities are aware that old approaches to controlling information aren't working." (Wall Street Journal, July 7)
China is home to 223 million Internet users, nearly as many as the U.S. (more than a third of Americans read news on the Web).
Chinese bloggers use cell phones and Twitter, a public instant-messaging feed, to post on-the-spot news faster than censors can block it.
"When mainstream Chinese Web sites began deleting posts on the issue [of a rape and death cover-up by officials], some bloggers turned to technical workarounds, including writing their posts backwards and reposting material that had been taken down elsewhere.
"Exposed to online postings that sprout up and multiply before they can be censored, the [Chinese] public has come to expect more transparency and responsiveness from the government." (WSJ, July 7)
Americans have too.
In 1964, opponents of civil rights were filing libel suits to silence news organizations that exposed state officials' refusal to enforce federal civil rights laws. The Supreme Court (New York Times v. Sullivan) established that journalists must be free to report on newsworthy events unless they recklessly or maliciously publish falsehoods.
Now Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) say America is "engaged in another great struggle - this time against Islamist terror - and again the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech." (WSJ, July 14)
They say English courts have become a popular place for individuals with alleged connections to terrorist activity to file libel suits against American authors. In England, disputed statements are presumed to be false unless proven otherwise. In America, disputers are required to prove statements are libelous.
In one suit, in 2003, Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 judgment against U.S. scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote in her book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It" that Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden. English courts permitted Mahfouz to file his libel suit, because 23 copies were bought online by English residents.
Mahfouz has filed or threatened to file at least 30 other suits in England.
"These suits intimidate and even silence writers and publishers," Specter and Lieberman wrote in the Wall Street Journal, July 14.
Fear of lawsuits have forced publishers of American authors to cancel publications (Random House U.K.: "House of Bush, House of Saud," 2004) or to destroy all available copies (Cambridge University Press: "Alms for Jihad," a book on terrorism funding, 2007).
Specter and Lieberman have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, a Senate companion to a House bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.).
The bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. It would not shield those who recklessly or maliciously print false information, but would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards.
It also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If an American jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award treble damages.
Perhaps Specter and Lieberman, both Jewish descendants, can give American Senators some insight into what the loss of a God-given right can do to a culture, regardless from which government it comes.
