About Me

Name: Always To The...
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Chief Complainer Is Also Chief Offender

This is from an excellent post on the Hot Air website.  This section deals with the "Canadian Civil Rights Commission."  This last few paragraphs deal with the [non] Fairness Doctrine and what it would do.

Another embarrassment for the Canadian Human Rights Commission

This points out one of the problems of governmental management of political speech, one that has a parallel in the Fairness Doctrine.  When government sets itself as the arbiter of acceptable discourse, it provides a path for extremists to intimidate their critics into silence.  That’s exactly what happened to Ezra Levant, who had to spend a fortune to defend what had been a commonly-accepted Western practice of free political speech, at least until political correctness became a matter of law in some nations.  Actual human-rights activists have bigger fish to fry than chasing Levant for publishing the Prophet Cartoons or criticizing political Islam.  The Canadian government has set itself up as a tool for scoundrels who want to silence critics, and now they seem surprised to find out that their chief complainant is simply a hater who wants to attack the people he hates through the HRC.

The Fairness Doctrine would do the same thing with talk radio.  Instead of actually promoting “diversity”, it would allow cranks to file no-cost complaints and hold up broadcast licenses, while the owners have to spend a fortune providing a minute-by-minute accounting of their content during the previous licensing period to prove their “diversity”.  Even beyond the issues of the First Amendment, the fact that the station gets enough ratings and advertisers to stay in business should indicate that it speaks to enough of the community to remain in business.  Putting the government in charge of “balance” will only provide a tool of mischief for those who want to silence voices with which they cannot compete.

But let’s not forget the First Amendment and its purpose, though.  Political speech, save calls for armed insurrection, should not get moderated by the governments that free speech is designed to keep in check.  Government-controlled speech eventually brings autocracy and then totalitarianism.  The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not a panel of government scolds that can get easily manipulated by extremists or the power-mad.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive