Freedom of Approved Speech

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The politicians are always working on tweaking freedom of speech because political correctness has turned out not to be oppressive enough.  They use back doors and side entrances to attack freedom of speech, because if they came in the front door, you would know what they were up to, and you would use your freedom of speech to stop them.  The political leaders tell you their actions against your liberty is for your own protection, because apparently you can't be trusted with it.

In today's political environment we have to be careful what we say and write because we don't want to offend someone who carries in their pocket a desire to destroy us.  Government, therefore, in the name of decency and "the right thing to do," limit our speech through any means necessary.  Political campaigns have become one of their favorite targets, for if you used your freedom of speech in support of your favorite candidate, the ruling elite might lose their positions of power.

Senator Ted Cruz says the latest proposal for campaign finance reform, and attempt by lawmakers to overturn the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, would make Saturday Night Live's political skits illegal.  According to Cruz, and many of his fellow Republicans, the Senate debate over a bill that would add a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to reverse the 2010 Supreme Court decision and restore limits on corporate campaign spending is a direct assault on freedom of speech.

Curbing freedom of speech in association with political campaigns is not the only assault currently being launched against freedom of speech.  Another side entrance into limiting the free speech of Americans is through the claim that government is trying to protect speech in media, and online.

Double-speak?

The leftists finally had to abandon the Fairness Doctrine, which required a ready response in opposition to any political opinion dealt on the air, be it television or radio, because people realized it was a way for government to control opinion in the media.  So, defeated by the loss of the Fairness Doctrine, the ones who wish to take away freedom of speech have turned to the internet, calling their bid for government dictatorship over the web "Net Neutrality."

The concept presented, in its simplest form, is that private enterprise can't be trusted.  The deep pocketed profit-hounds will try to make money off of you by charging for internet access in tiers, as cable companies have done with television content.  Since the capitalist pigs want to charge you for their services as they create more innovation in the industry, government must protect access to the internet by the average Joe-Public.  In order to protect the product that internet providers want to make impossible for you to be able to afford, government must step in and take control, and dictate the terms, for your protection - which will in turn halt all innovation.

Congress has rejected the idea over and over, and so has the courts (not that that matters), so the FCC (which falls under Obama's Executive Branch) illegally took matters into their own hands.  But seizing that power is not enough. . . it never is with these people.  They want more.  The Democrat Party wants to move forward to make sure that not only Net Neutrality becomes the law of the land with sweeping new powers, but that it extends way beyond just the internet.  Remember, the ruling elite truly believes that if government is not controlling something, and dictating terms over everything attached, the greedy choices of individuals trying to make a profit will ruin everything.

Well, individualism at any level sickens these people.  As far as they are concerned, that kind of free choice must be bound, gagged, and put out of commission. . . but that's a different conversation.

According to those that support Net Neutrality, the rules "bar home broadband providers like Comcast from blocking or unreasonably discriminating against any Internet traffic."  In other words, giant telecom conglomerates would be able to force content providers to pay expensive new ‘prioritization’ fees to ensure their content reliably reaches Internet users.

As if the world is static.

If major internet carriers began pulling what the federal government says they will do if the federal government doesn't control all things, what would stop innovative entrepreneurs from creating an internet product that didn't do what the politicians claim will happen?  I mean, aside from restrictive government regulations. . . 

If giant telecom conglomerates did things that would anger their customers, and content providers, then the market will adjust, smaller telecom companies willing to work with customers and content providers would emerge, and the giant telecom conglomerates would go the way of the dinosaurs.  That is how the free market works.

Liberal left statists don't support such ideas, and claims that the theory of a free market is not true.  Instead, they claim, for the benefit of their greedy drive for profit, big business will kill their own businesses with bad business practices and nobody will be able to combat it with a better product because the big business types would never allow it as they are unable to sell their product because they made it too expensive to purchase.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants federal regulators to have sweeping new powers over Internet access, and she says this kind of federal control is needed to save net neutrality and protect Internet users.

Republicans and business groups warn that applying utility-style regulations to the Internet would strangle economic growth and ultimately mean worse Internet service.

Pelosi is the latest Democrat to back the controversial regulatory maneuver. Her position is designed to put more political pressure on the FCC so that the agency will invoke the powers not constitutionally granted to them.

And what will these new sweeping powers entail?

How about FCC expansion of its net-neutrality rules to cover cell-phone service.

Remember, they are doing this after earlier this year their precious court system that they normally love and adore struck down their rules and said "you can't do that."

Expanding net-neutrality regulations to cell-phone service would outrage the wireless providers, the leftists are saying (because nothing gets the uninformed voters more in a feeding frenzy than their Democrat Party heroes attacking those mean old corporate types, and their mean old corporate practices of providing services, making a profit, creating jobs, and contributing to the potential prosperity of the economy by growing and producing).

The opposition to the FCC going after wireless carriers say that applying the rules to wireless networks would risk stifling the industry's growth.

"Okay, Doug," you may be asking, "What does Net Neutrality have to do with Freedom of Speech?"

Everything.

If you allow the government to poke its nose into anything for even the best of reasons, it will eventually take that inch, and then grab a mile.  Allowing government interference into vessels of information is to eventually allow them access to the information, and the opportunity to control that information.  This administration has already shown its disdain for those that dare to disagree with them, and that they are willing to use every tool at their disposal to silence all opposition.  The IRS scandal is about the federal government using the IRS to punish groups that dare to stand against the Democrat Party narrative.  The NSA scandals are all about the government spying on people, as DHS documents float around calling all opposition to the White House "domestic terrorists."

Net Neutrality, like the bill to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizen's United, is an attempt to quell freedom of speech, and to silence their opposition.

I don't care if the regulations are claimed to be in our best interest.  Government never has our best interest at heart.  Too much government is an increase of tyranny.  Limited government is the essence of liberty.

If those that would take your freedom of speech from you are willing to suspend suburban Chicago firefighters because they refused to remove patriotic stickers posted on their helmets and lockers two days before 9/11, how long before the same kind of action will be taken against you for daring to post material in opposition to the reigning political faction in Washington?

If you believe it is in your best interest to allow government to take power over certain things, it won't be long before government takes power over certain things that are not.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ted Cruz Says SNL Skits Illegal Under Campaign Finance Proposal - Deadline

Nancy Pelosi Backs Controversial Internet Powers to Save Net Neutrality - National Journal

FCC May Expand Net Neutrality to Cell Phones - National Journal

Firefighters Say They Were Sent Home for Refusing to Remove Patriotic Stickers - NBC Chicago

Quotes Regarding Freedom of Speech - Political Pistachio