Dissent is not welcome in China. There are no Chinese freedom-of-the-press constitutional protections that exist in most western democratic nations.
Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions such as defamation law…1 Even with these few caveats, free speech is protected to ensure all voices can be heard. These protections are even more critically necessary when smaller groups or individuals wish to be heard.
Whenever attempts to abridge or amend these rights are seriously discussed, all Americans should be forewarned and alarmed. This is especially the case when liberally affiliated or socialist aligned government officials, or organizational spokespersons, suggest that news sources that carry conservative messaging should be silenced. As liberal political forces continue to gain strength in numbers across the nation we cannot allow them to “cancel” the voice of the political opposition.
As demographic trends continue to point to growing liberal constituent numerical superiority, oppositional voices must be heard. Once liberal/socialist political officials control all forms of federal, state and local government, we become a country controlled by a single political party. With this form of absolute political control, the ability to amend the constitution to fully silence political opposition will be fait accompli. Once successful, we will know we now live in the Peoples Republic of America.
Whether you remember China’s use of the military in Tiananmen Square you should know it bears significant resemblance to the oppression now occurring in Hong Kong. The PRC is completely crushing political opposition with “laws” that enable oppression. These laws are being used to great effect in Hong Kong leading to the imprisonment of the leaders fighting for retention of democratic freedoms the PRC agreed to in negotiations with Great Britain. The PRC will not tolerate a whisper of democracy.
Throughout China the use of technology (AI and facial recognition software behind a national network of HD video cameras), to identify those suspected of merely thinking about dissent, is fully documented. Through these means, as well as more traditional forms of political oppression, those identified as potentially having active dissent on their minds are arrested and either “re-educated” or imprisoned or both.
Once again the words written by George Will ring with undeniable truth. Below are excerpts from Mr. Will’s column “There is no government cure for media pollution” (Freedom of the Press) published March 4, 2021.
As the progressive campaign to regulate unprogressive speech seeps out of campuses and into mainstream politics, the party whose base includes academia is behaving predictably.
This past week, U.S. Reps Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Mike Doyle, D-Pa., of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, convened a hearing for the undisguisable purpose of intimidating streaming services that distribute conservative content, or what nowadays passes for that.
On February 22, two California Democrats, U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo and U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney, sent to A.T.T. and other entities letters declaring that “the right-wing media ecosystem” – they named Fox News, News max and One America News Network – has produced “our current polluted information environment”.
The pollution is undeniable. So are progressives’ contributions to it, e.g., their obsession with 2016 “Russia collusion”, their ludicrously solemn and extensive interviewing of Stormy Daniels’ felonious lawyer, Michael Avenatti, and their beatification of Gov. Andrew Cuomo during the pandemic.
Eshoo and McNerney, however, economize their indignation by focusing on the right.
In their letters they demanded to know, among other things, how many of the cable and streaming services subscribers watched the three disapproved channels in the weeks prior to the Nov. 3 election and the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capital, and “are you planning to continue carrying” the three channels, and “if so, why?”
There being no conceivable legislative remedy compatible with the first amendment, for what displeases Eshoo and McNerney, the bullying purpose of their letters was patent.
Eleven months ago, after the Trump reelection campaign sent letters to certain broadcasters threatening that their licenses could be “in jeopardy” if they continue airing a particular anti-Trump advertisement, Pallone and Doyle urged the FCC to reassure broadcasters that it would not interfere “with broadcasters’ discretion to air legally protected content.”
The FCC said they “cannot second guess the judgement of broadcasters” and should make clear that FCC decisions will not be influenced by “threats by politicians.”
This past week’s hearing, orchestrated by Pallone and Doyle in the context created by the Eshoo-McNerney letters, constituted Trump-like pressure on the streaming services.
It did, however, elicit two contributions to the public understanding of more than Pallone’s and Doyle’s status as virtuosos of situational ethics.
Jonathon Turley of Georgetown Law School said the Eshoo-McNerney letter encourages, in their words, “adverse actions” against – in plain words, the shutting down of – the preferred news source for tens of millions of Americans.
“This” Turley said, “is the essence of a state media model. … You must not only control the narrative but also eliminate alternatives to it.
Emily Bell of the Columbia Journalism School testified that new platforms have “democratized the distribution, circulation and monetization of media,” thereby demolishing the “gatekeeper” function formerly performed by print and broadcast media.
Mr. Will goes on in the aforementioned column to decry the power aggregated sources of “news” possess (such as Facebook and YouTube among others) as local news outlets continue to fall victim to the pressures of the pandemic and the outflow of advertising revenues to online media giants.
Yet the point is clear, vigilance must be maintained to keep the likes of Eshoo, McNerney, Pallone, and Doyle from establishing a defacto state media by eliminating news sources that present a perspective that is counter to their political ambitions.
There was a time when all politicians would abhor the mere perception that they wish to tread on the first amendment. Clearly demographic trends have emboldened the vanguard of the socialist-leaning progressives to attack the opposition by requesting the removal of their constitutional rights. Once the silencing of any news source willing to present conservative perspectives is accomplished, then all news will be filtered and cleansed by the progressive-dominated outlets like Facebook, YouTube (owned by Google), NBC (including local affiliates), MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post and many, many others. All messaging by Socialist-leaning and progressive politicians will be fully reinforced by mass media outlets shaping of “news”.
Once the first amendment is vanquished and all forms of government, federal and state, are controlled by socialist-leaning progressives, who is to stop them from removing the electoral college, removing term limits for presidents, and outlawing any form of gun ownership. When the forces for true democracy, based on the vision of our founding fathers, are voiceless and defenseless, the Peoples Republic of America will be born.