Remember the lauded bi-partisan McCain-Feingold Act? The one that was supposed to clean up politics by letting your neighbors spy on your political donations and other wonderful attacks on freedom. A nice invasion of privacy brought to you in part by a man that claims to fight for the rights of the people. But invasion of privacy is nothing compared to what else that law allows. It’s now become a de facto restriction of free speech similar to Brenda Konkel’s efforts to remove the people from city politics by making them register as lobbyists. In Seattle some radio hosts supporting an anti-gas-tax initiative are now being persecuted for not reporting their comments as “in-kind political contributions”. What’s next, will bloggers also be forced to report their comments and then have to stop making comments when they’ve reached the limits set forth by the McCain-Feingold Act?
Why did they choose to go after radio hosts? Why not a newspaper? Newspapers take sides and write editorials on nearly every political issue. How exactly does limiting free speech clean up campaigns? Isn’t free speech the lifeblood of an open society?
Where’s Feingold on this issue? He sponsored this bill and worked to make it pass. He is responsible for how that law is applied. Especially since he’s trying to fashion a bid for the Presidency. He needs to take a stance on the draconian manner in which his law is being used. Unless of course he supports these violations of rights.
I’m embarrassed that Wisconsin keeps electing Feingold. We can do better and deserve better.
Nobody reads newspapers anymore. The news I do get from papers is actually reported through CNN or MSNBC or some radio show.
A big difference between papers and radio is that newpapers are created by journalists while the people on radio and tv shows on the 24 hour news channels are just their to generate ratings and sell commercial time. I give them no credibility.
With a paper you can check and re-check your facts before they are printed. And typically this process goes through more than one editor which should ween out any garbage. But on the air you can throw junk all day. Most of those radio and tv shows are just 1 hour Op-Ed pieces anyway. I mostly just watch them for entertainment now, instead of relying on them for actual facts.
Comment by Brennan — Monday 31 October, 2005 @ 13:51
Credibility or popularity is not the issue. If a radio host wants to talk complete nonsense when they take a side on an issue, that’s between the host and the executives. The point is the government has no right to limit or restrict the free speech of a radio host, newspaper journalist or private citizens, especially when it comes to political issues.
Comment by Steven A. Stehling — Monday 31 October, 2005 @ 18:31