On Aug 27, 7:27Â am, Fred Weiss
papertig.com> wrote:> On Aug 27, 1:01Â am, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>>...Thank McCain for Campaign Speech Reform.
>
> I assume you are referring to McCain-Feingold. Â In my view it is such
> a blatant, direct assault on the 1st Amend., it is sufficient grounds
> to oppose McCain for president. I have said many times before that I
> regarded McCain - for that and other reasons - as the most dangerous
> man in America. Whether he should be supported - very grudgingly -
> over Osama and Hair Plugs for purely "pragmatic" reasons is a separate
> question. (But I could argue that an Osama/Hair Plugs victory would be
> such an obvious disaster for the country that it would once again set
> the "liberals" back for a generation. A Republican congressional sweep
> in 2010 at the very least would be virtually guaranteed. Of course
> that's a mixed blessing.)
I agree that McCain-Feingold was an assault on the First.
That McCain is enemy of the First Amendment is reason
enough to oppose him. Where's that Hitler moustache
when I need it? Of course, Obama has demonstrated his
willingness to use this bludgeon, just in order to silence
some opposition who want to bring up the soap operatic
issue of his association with a Weatherman. So, for those
who support Free Speech, there is no Presidential candidate
to choose from.
> Of course the Democrats in the area of free speech aren't any better
> and they have become more and more outspoken in their eagerness to
> squelch speech they oppose, the clearest example being their continual
> threats to bring back "the Fairness Doctrine" which is intended as an
> explicit attack on conservative talk radio. Also recall the barely
> veiled threats from the Democrat camp against Sinclair Broadcasting
> when they tried to air the "Swift Boat" film during the 2004
> presidential campaign.
It is as if the Democrats want to chew off the only
body part they have which makes them better than
the Republicans: their alleged support for Free Speech
and other civil liberties.
> The basic problem here is the widely held view - by both liberals and
> conservatives - that the airwaves are "public property" and therefore
> should be regulated by the gov't. If that doctrine could ever be
> overturned, it would be a great victory for freedom in this country.
> At least for the time being we have managed to keep their "cold dead
> hands" off the Internet.
If they outlaw Free Speech, only criminals (i.e. politicians)
will have Free Speech.
