free speech

From Obama's May 2nd Michigan Graduation Speech:

Today's twenty-four seven echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before. It has also, however, given us unprecedented choice. ...we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows.

This development can be both good and bad for democracy. .. if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.

This of course requires that we all agree on a certain set of facts to debate from, and that is why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and talking heads.

The White House's "I Love you back!/(Laughter)/(Applause)" version of this speech is also available. H/T to the hubby.

Happy 4th of July.

President Obama has taken complete control of the First Amendment in an around the Gulf of Mexico region; the physical breadth of the BP oil spill will now work as a map, where 65 feet beyond the borders of this oily map, America's freedom as we know it has ceased to exist.

Not even the President's media lapdogs can tell the Truth if they want to.

With this latest development, the Obama Administration has effectively given us a clue of what's in store for America: we don't need a free press when the government can supply all the information we need, via whatever medium is available. As you read this, realize that this is a pre-cursor to Obama's plans to equalize the internet -- where complete government control of the internet will guarantee that content will be regulated and restricted, and we can anticipate he will pipe unfettered, "unbiased" government information into homes across America. Something like what Neil says has been enacted in Finland.

He's fulfilling his campaign promises to "connect and empower all Americans through technology and innovation" .. and "to help unprecedented numbers of citizens take back the political process" like he did with his use of the internet "to transform presidential politics."

What we are seeing is Obama's "Journalism Re-invention" in action -- his piping a speech to kids without parental permission during classtime is pigeon compared to what he's trying to pull now.

We already know the White House controls the media. Now the Obama Administration is using the BP oil spill to restrict access and information to completely control the message that is broadcast to the public.

This is NOT THE FIRST TIME he has shut out the media's access to a news event.. First he excludes and evades -- repeatedly, then he shuts out media access, and now he's passed enforceable law.

Under threat of being charged with a Class D Felony and a $40,000 fine, journalists, bloggers, and photographers cannot come within 65 feet of response vessels working the BP spill or booms floating in the Gulf or laying on beaches.

This 65 foot "exclusion zone" had been reduced from 300 feet and is yet another restriction placed on photographers and reporters. At the end of May, the FAA and Coast Guard would not allow private charter planes carrying media to fly below 3,000 feet to better document the BP disaster.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported Thursday that ["the [65 foot "exclusion zone"] order was a Coast Guard-wide directive from the top."

CNN's Anderson Cooper reports on the impact this will have on holding the federal government accountable -- by documenting and ensuring timely responses to boom removal, animal rescue and just getting the local's version of the BP story out:

*See the VID at Redstate

Locals in the Times-Picayunne also reported that the 65-foot restriction could "block photographers and reporters from accessing some waterways altogether."

So, absolutely no one would have access to anywhere the federal government deemed it necessary to lay a boom. Too many snoopy photographers? Lay a boom. Too many journalists accessing a waterway? Lay another boom.

What an effective "corralling" of the BP narrative without public oversight.

The Obama Administration will be whitewashing bad PR-damaging images like this that read "Look, a poor bird near the boom those government crews haven't cleaned up yet! They are so damn slow and inefficient!" --

with sanitized pics like this that scream "Not a moment to lose! Your Taxdollars hard at work!!" directly from their "Been There Since Day 1" Official Deepwater Horizon Joint Command Site:

The Obama Administration is well-aware of the power of the internet. Without reporters and bloggers providing clear pictures and descriptions of the events as they happen, where they happen, when they happen, readers and the rest of the media will flock to the information that is readily accessible.

The Obama Administration is ready.

Taking the lead from the Obama's massive BarackObama.com site that still stands at the ready, the DNC's populist-persuasion website and other propagandist sites the left has used to swindle the American people, Federal Deepwater, Inc. has some very cool apps that will help conceal, cover up and camouflage the federal government's lackadaisical response to the nation's worst environmental disaster that hit the Gulf on Obama's watch. It includes:

• A Flickr link
• a YouTube Channel
• a Twitter feed
• a Facebook page
• SMS alerts
• live webcam feeds
• an RSS feed, complete with email subscripts that will pipe photos and media blips directly to your browser and mailbox

• oh -- and a cool widget for your blog, website or page so you can be linked to THE primary source of news and information coming out of the area via a permanent Twitter, News and Links update (complete with ShareThis plugin).

Remember, this 65-foot restriction under pain of felony charges and $40K in fines, will black out media giants CNN, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, CBS -- everyone. Where will America get our our news about BP now? How long before America becomes bored of hearing regurgitated press releases and sanitized photos taken by a federal employee?

I'd rather have the candids of the Free Press than staged pics ("Wait! Go back and do that again!") that would rival the boredom generated from watching Obama's useless flickr photostream.

Obama knows that we will tire with whatever comes from the official federal government newsfeed, because he'll be using the same drone-inducing spell progressives have used for generations: it's fake. Fraudulent. People can only take so much lying to before they turn away and tune out in disgust.

And now, it's a federal crime to tell the Truth.

Sometime in the future, the only "truth" America may "officially" know will be what the government tells the public through the internet; nationalizing parts of the media will not be the only way for the federal government to indoctrinate, spread propaganda, and garner votes.

What the Obama Administration proves with this 65-foot restriction is that "transparency" is a gimmick, a buzzword as useless as Obama's "hope" -- but as lethal to America as his radical, socialist sort of "change," because he's used the word "transparency" to create a false sense of security and reframe the public's image of the quintessential corrupt, calculating politician.

Transparent.

This fraud is killing Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.

How long will you and I have a right to say that?

"Wherever despotism abounds, the sources of public information are the first to be brought under its control." ~Calvin Coolidge

Note to America:  These.

Dover Photo-Op

 Not these.

Vets, Public & Press censored by BO

No dissent. 

Only useful service. 

- with Hugo Estrada.

Servicemen handcuffed themselves to the White House gate to protest the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

Vets self-handcuffed to the WH Gate, censored by BO

 Pic via RS.

In response, the Obama Administration not only closed Penn Avenue. He closed Lafayette Park across the street from the White House and had the both the public and the media pushed back. 

No access, no pictures, no recording of American public dissention.

When the Obama Administration censors the civil protestation of members from his very own constituency, Obama has thoroughly closed the door on Free Speech and, in this case, Freedom of the Press.

"Transparency" becomes a side issue as we tread in waters that are entirely un-American.

See the "Get Back!" video here.

This comes on the heels of  Obama coming unhinged at a DNC fundraiser where he was heckled by protestors of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" over the weekend.

See Obama unhinged here.

If he doesn't want us to see the goings-on of his own political base, can you imagine what else Obama restricts public access to?

The internet is a monopoly and needs to be regulated as such.  While individual users might see several available ISPs, the backbone is shared by all.  Therefore, government regulators have a legitimate interest in how it functions. 

Net Neutrality is the requirement that all internet traffic get the same priority.  Free speech advocates say that without net neutrality, large telecoms could slow or block traffic from left wing blogs, for example.  On the other side, telecoms argue that they need the ability to give important and low bandwidth internet functions like email and blog surfing priority over bandwidth hogs like peer to peer file sharing and high resolution video. 

This should be a solvable problem.  Free speech advocates and telecom engineers should be able to design a multi tiered  system that gives large files lower priority without regard to content.  Unfortunately, politicians on both sides are blocking a purely technical solution.  Democrats do not trust telecoms to remain content neutral.  Indeed, without vigilant regulation, that is a serious worry.

Conservatives argue against government involvement of any kind.  This ignores the fact that the internet began as and remains a government program.  It demonstrates that government sometimes can, in the words of President Reagan, “be here to help”.  By opposing all regulation, they force free speech advocates to fight any packet priority system at all. 

Republican rigidity on net neutrality harmful to a technological solution to the bandwidth issue.  It also gives the impression that Republicans are more concerned about large telecoms than freedom of speech.  How different things would look if Republicans championed an innovative technological solution with content guarantees.  No longer would the word “intertubes” be a universal code word for old Republican technological ignorance (Senator Stevens described the internet as being like a network of tubes.). 

The Wikipedia article on net neutrality is surprisingly balanced, with links to all sides of the issue.

     The first amendment to the United States Constitution reads;

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Ratified 12/15/1791 

     In direct contradiction to that right, here is part of a press release from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, issued Sep 21, 2009;

Medicare today called on Medicare-contracted health insurance and prescription drug plans to suspend potentially misleading mailings to beneficiaries about health care and insurance reform. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently asked Humana, Inc. to end similar mailings. Humana has agreed to do so.

     The problem started when the huge insurance company Humana, Inc. had the audacity to send an informational letter to its health insurance customers. Humana is the company that manages health plans for Medicare beneficiaries. In the letter, the customers were informed that "millions of seniors and disabled individuals" could lose "important benefits and services" under the reform proposals being considered by Congress. The customers were urged to contact their congressional representatives over their concerns.

      Well, that explains it. We can’t have all the common citizens running around all over the place with actual information. They must accept what they are told by Washington and be happy with it.  

     These are private companies, owned and operated by private American citizens. The federal government has told those companies, operated by those United States citizens, to shut up. Apparently the first amendment doesn’t protect their speech, unless that speech agrees with the government. 

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell asks – “Where is the outrage from the media on this abuse of power? Here we have an orchestrated and deliberate attempt to keep American citizens in the dark, particularly vulnerable seniors. Their very health is at risk, yet all but ABC have chosen to keep their audiences in the dark about this abuse. If they aren't willing to probe and at least question the administration on this blatant offense, what else are they shoving under the rug”?

I can’t believe this is happening here in the Land of the Free. America had better wake up in a hurry.

Read more at http://commonconservativesense.com 

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The Cato Institute has been following the Citizens United v. FEC case, in which the Supreme Court is set to rule on whether an organization can use speech about a political candidate in the days leading up to an election. The Federal Election Commission banned Citizen United from showing a film against Hillary Clinton on a pay-per-view basis shortly before the last year’s election.

The so-called Citizens United case offers the Supreme Court a chance to severely curtail the free speech abuses of the Federal Election Commission. If the government can ban broadcasts under federal law, that else can they ban? Books? Commercials? In the following CATO video, campaign finance law and free speech experts discuss the case, and what it means for the future of free speech. The Supreme Court is set to rule on it in the next few weeks. John Samples, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson and George Mason University law professor Allison Hayward weigh in.

Or Free Republic, for that matter?  Well, Linda Sanchez (D) thinks it might be a good idea.

(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

So, let me see if I understand this.  If I go onto Daily Kos and start accusing the posters of being godless communists bent on destroying the USA, using withering inflammatory insults ("severe" and "hostile"), and I do so in a "repeated" manner, then according to Sanchez I should be thrown in jail.

Of course the intention is to stop 'cyber-bullying' among kids.  But here is a pretty obvious case where the proposed action upon the intention will have significant unintended consequences that threaten everyone's liberty.

H/T: Corner, Volokh

Podcast Show Notes

Another Democrat New Deal problem or Obama tells us about FDR's imaginary housing bail out.

Barack Obama threatens TV stations to get them to stop running NRA ads attacking him. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt calls Obama out for "police state tactics" (Hat Tip: Sister Toldjah.)

Obama campaign bans signs at a Virginia rally. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Sorry, foreigners, who'd like to vote for Obama, only U.S. citizens can vote UNFORTUNATELY.

First goal of an Obama Presidency: 125,000 more dead unborn children a year.

Obama's snake oil faith tour gets panned in Lynchburg.

What's saving us from Barbarians at the gate? According to Joe Biden, trial lawyers and labor unions.

Sarah Palin stands up for "Under God." (Hat Tip: Wizbang Blog.)

Plus was John McCain right in calling for Chris Cox's resignation? (Hat Tip: Instapundit.)

Plus optional components of bi-partisan meetings held by Democrats: inviting Republicans.

Democrats stole a House vote incorrectly announcing a Republican Amendment failed. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

The outrageous attempts of House Democrats to hide what's in a $1 trillion continuing resolution.

Luke Russert makes a rookie mistake.

State Trooper chaplains resign due to rules against praying in Jesus' name. (Hat Tip: News Busters.)

An Islamist sect in England is radicalizing British Muslim youth.

Second Amendment rights excercised in the defense of life and property.

A former abortionist tells all.

Ben and Jerry opts against Breast Milk Ice Cream.

A Pennsylvania diner free to anyone who'll run it.

A woman named Bacon wins a hog calling contest.

Skepticism thwarts robbery.

Music by Exit 417 via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen, click here to download.

'This is written so anybody can take any part and grow it into monstrosity'
<!-- end deck -->Posted: July 01, 2008
9:05 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
<!-- copyright -->© 2008 WorldNetDaily <!-- end copyright -->

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68542

[Promoted - There's really no chance that Democrats can bring back the Fairness Doctrine itself...and they know this.  As a result, they're trying to impose it by appealing to populist, anti-business and anti-property sympathies.  You can read more about their current efforts in this article at National Review.

The progressive's "media reform" movement is becoming incredibly well-organized and influential, and it's getting positioned to have a major, game-changing impact on the media landscape.  Their 'fairness doctrine through other means' strategy could tilt the political landscape for generations to come.  This is important. - Jon Henke]

Why are the Democrats against free speech? Why do they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Why are the stalling on an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act? And the big question, why aren’t conservatives, republicans, and libertarians up in arms over this and pressuring Congress to act.