 |
| Amongst the Censors |
In today's Huffington Post is Joseph A. Palermo's "Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer and the Importance of Net Neutrality." Net neutrality, you see, is yet another way the Left hopes to silence their opposition -- and Palermo calls on Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to do exactly that.
I guess he gets partial credit for honesty. And if this latest example of the Left's rush to suppression via Obama's FCC makes you think of the old Censorship Doctrine or any of the new ones -- "localism," "diversity in media ownership" and serving the "public interest" -- well, it should.
Palermo:
"The Huffington Post and other progressive news and information sites, along with MoveOn.org and other Internet organizing networks, played a key role in this dramatic shift in communications technology away from the Right and toward progressive social change. We need to lock in this advantage.
"...With Democratic majorities in Congress and a liberal Democratic administration we can blunt the political influence of media conglomerates and the Right.... We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing."
What's so "neutral" about "lock(ing) in a progressive advantage" via regulatory fiat from Obama's FCC?
Palermo acknowledges the Left is winning on the Internet -- in the unfettered marketplace of ideas -- but that's not good enough for him. He insists that Obama's FCC "lock in this advantage."
"A few minor changes in the rules and regulations governing the public airwaves and corporate media consolidation could transform the political economy of the media sector. Such reforms would make it more difficult for networks to shove people like Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer down our throats because enhanced competition would mean that rivals might be broadcasting more attractive fare."
Substitute "Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin" for "Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer" and you get the idea.
Palermo so loathes the free market and the First Amendment free speech rights of his opponents that he wants to rig the rules to establish a permanent progressive advantage in all things media -- even in areas where he admits his side already has the lead.
The Censorship Doctrine isn't one particular regulatory beast, it is a state of mind. One that compels liberals -- in fact makes them feel entitled -- to silence the opposition by any means necessary.
All in the interest of "neutrality" and "fairness," of course.
