Resisting Censorship and Advocating the Dissemination of Information

In light of the refusal of the Los Angeles Times to release the video tape of Barak Obama at Rashid Khalidi’s going away party, the responsibility the press immediately comes to mind. It is ironic that the LA Times would quash the Khalidi video, while they utilize those same liberties that allow them the freedom to publish their opinion. To think that the press would align themselves in such a position is clearly self destructive and outright Anti-American in the mind of many U.S, citizens. After all, the sole reason for the existence of the press rests on the subscription of its viewers and on the autonomies of the 1^st amendment, which were fought for by the many generations of America’s veterans. Over the last 8 years the Tribune Company’s stock, has tanked from excesses of $60 per share back in December of 2000, to less than $30 dollars a share in December 2006; in the last two years it has only rebounded by $5 per share at best. The enormous loss should be an indication to the media outlet that it has lost the respect of its readers, so why it would want to further its downward spiral, by actions that exemplify censorship and the repression of valuable information is beyond comprehension. What is more inconceivable is the lack of protest from their shareholders; of course there is a good chance that the majority shareholder has an agenda of his or her own, then that person should be publicly harangued as well. I, for one, don’t buy into the LA Times claims that they are merely protecting the source of the video. The fight to resist the censorship and dissemination of information that is vital to our nation’s capability to endure is a struggle throughout time that can be witnessed since before the existence of the Roman Empire. To think, that in this day and age, a news outlet would stand in the way of the truth, leads me to reminisce of the time that Daniels Shays led a group of revolutionaries carrying pitchforks and torches, who intended to “light a fire” that would illuminate the repressive nature of those who tread on their liberties.

Daniel Shay

 The following is an excerpt from the article, “The long history of censorship” that can be found at beaconforfreedom.org:

Censorship has followed the free expressions of men and women like a shadow through history. In ancient societies, such as China, censorship was considered a legitimate instrument for regulating the moral and political life of the population. In China, the first censorship law was introduced in 300 AD. The origin of the term censor in English can be traced to the office of censor established in Rome in 443 BC. In Rome, as in the ancient Greek communities, the ideal of good governance included shaping the character of the people. Hence censorship would have been regarded as an honorable task. The most famous case of censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities. But it is fair to assume that Socrates was not the first person to be severely punished for violating the moral and political code of his time. This ancient view of censorship, as a benevolent public service in the best interest of the people, is still upheld by countries such as China, as it was advocated by the rulers of the Soviet Union (USSR), responsible for the longest lasting and most extensive censorship of the 20^th Century. 

Given this retrospective look into the “honorable” intentions of censorship, it isn’t hard to dispel the reasoning propagated by those of times gone by. The line of reasoning, offered by these repressive regimes, to suppress the dissemination of information can be refuted in one single statement averred long ago by the Greek tragic poet, Euripides, who declared . . .  “This is slavery, not to speak one’s thought.” Euripides lived in a time when people were more focused on their surroundings, because they didn’t have the many material distractions in contemporary society. Euripides is known primarily for having reshaped the formal structure of the “traditional attic tragedy” by showing strong women characters and intelligent slaves, and by satirizing many heroes of Greek mythology. It has often been said that our social order has been based largely on that which was championed by the Roman Republic; so it’s not hard to see the ideologies advocated by Euripides some 2500 years ago, are some of the same values that guide us today. Pro-feminine values and [and I must admit I say this with a varying degree of contention] a respectable level of intelligence can be found at most levels of our society; the reason these things are prevalent in our society is that we are at liberty to speak our minds. Euripides’ twist on attic style tragedies, along with his aforementioned statement regarding the hazards of enslavement through censorship, exemplifies why America has become the great country it is. By reverting to those questionable antics endorsed by the likes of China, and the now defunct U.S.S.R., we have got to question the direction in which our country is headed. More disturbing is that this recent incident, where the LA Times has refused to release a pertinent piece of potentially incriminating evidence involving the current democratic presidential nominee, is not just a single isolated incident. As in recent months, Senator Obama’s campaign has attempted to stifle his opposition; listed below are just a few examples of those attempts:

 

Kevin Miller, a conservative talk show host on Pittsburgh’s KDKA-AM, was given an on-air CBS corporate reprimand Wednesday, read by his executive producer and prompted by listener complaints after Miller dared to interview guests critical of Presidential candidate Barack Obama and express his own negative opinions about the candidate. 

Former Hillary Clinton supporters from “Political Unity My Ass” [a.k.a --- P.U.M.A.], who now are throwing their weight behind the McCain/Palin ticket, initiated a blog titled “Count Us Out.” At their website the headline reads:

 “Obama Attacks Free Speech – Attempts Censorship of Chicago Talk Radio Station”

Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.

It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an “Obama Action Wire” alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat. Monday night’s target was David Freddoso, who the campaign said was scheduled to be on the station from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Chicago time. “The author of the latest anti-Barack hit book is appearing on WGN Radio in the Chicagoland market tonight, and your help is urgently needed to make sure his baseless lies don’t gain credibility,” an e-mail sent Monday evening to Obama supporters reads. “David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering,” the message said. “And WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama — on the public airwaves.” The station was flooded with calls and e-mails about an hour before an Aug. 27 interview with Stanley Kurtz, a conservative writer who examined Obama’s ties to former 1960s radical William Ayers. A WGN producer said Monday night’s response was about the same as when Kurtz was on the station.

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/obama-hates-free-speech-attempts-censorship-of-chicago-talk-radio-station/

At “joeschmoepolitico,” below a picture of Obama and his Storm Troopers accosting John McCain, writers exposed the truth about Obama’s “Truth Squad” by posting a reference to a lawsuit filed against the “American Issues Project” for airing advertisements that portray Obama in a negative light.

Washington, DC – September 26, 2008 – Barack Obama is now using local law enforcement officials to carry out his campaign of legal intimidation by assembling a group of high-ranking Missouri police officials and prosecutors – including St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough and City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce – to identify and target anyone the campaign determines is producing “misleading” political advertisements.

“This is an outrageous and shocking attempt by the Obama campaign to again employ Stalinist, police state tactics against those who dare to disagree with Barack Obama,” said Ed Martin, American Issues Projects president.   “I am frankly stunned to see public officials like McCullough and Joyce abusing their official prosecutorial positions to serve as attack dogs for a national political campaign.  I am quite certain Missourians elected these individuals to enforce the laws and arrest criminals, not to throw people in jail for daring to practicing free speech.

“The Obama campaign continues to provide a chilling preview of what would happen to political freedom in an Obama administration.”

This new effort is only the most recent attempt by the Obama campaign to crack down on free speech.  Obama’s lawyers twice demanded the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute the American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors.  The campaign also threatened stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot, and ran its own ad in response.

http://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/obamas-storm-troopers/ 

What are bloggers saying?

At conservablog.com the author wrote:

I disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it,’ which changed to, ‘If you don’t like it, turn the channel,’ and now we hear, ‘you’re inciting hate, so I will have you charged with a Hate Crime, you bigot!’”

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/2008/10/17/pro-obama-censorship-at-blogtalkradio/ 

“In an ABC news blog, entitled, “Political Punch,” Pastor Swope commented:

So…I’m to believe that those involved in a “Truth Squad” have the corner on truth, and clearly see the right answers to all debate that running for the office of President of the United States generates? Am I perceived as mindless enough that I would want a man in the Oval Office who would allow such activities to be associated with his campaign? Wake up citizens of America…for you will certainly have to endure the rule of the one you vote into office. Shame on you, candidate Obama, for your inexperienced lack of understanding of the proper use of power, you who desire to head the Executive branch!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/attacking-obama.html

At another blogspot entitled, “Advance Indiana” the writer refers to Obama’s admitted drug use in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” and chastises the Obama “truth squad” with challenges to silence him. He writes:

“The Indiana campaign of presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama announced the formation of an “Indiana Truth Squad” today to ‘debunk any unfounded attacks against Senator Obama in the final weeks of the Indiana campaign and show Hoosiers why Barack Obama is the only candidate in this race who will bring change we can believe in’ . . .  Allow me to offer the first challenge to this so-called truth squad to tell Hoosiers and the American people the full truth about Sen. Barack Obama’s drug use.”
“Before the Obama people start jumping up and down screaming that this is just another “unfounded attack,” let me remind them that it was none other than Obama himself who injected the issue of drug use into this campaign. As an aspiring, young politician, Obama openly admitted his drug use in his 1995 book, “Dreams from My Father.” ‘Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though,’ he wrote. He talks about “smoking reefer” in “the dorm room of some brother” and “getting high.” As a candidate for the state legislature or the U.S. Senate in Illinois, Obama didn’t have to answer questions about his past drug use according to Sun-Times political columnist Lynn Sweet. As a candidate for president, Obama has answered few questions about his past drug use.”

http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/04/will-obamas-indiana-truth-squad-address.html 

What is more discouraging is that it has been reported the Democratic Party has intentions to reinstate the “Fairness act. ” The “Fairness act” was formally adopted as an FCC rule in 1949 and repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-broadcaster FCC, “The Fairness Doctrine” had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. Sound like censorship to you? That’s because it is.        I assume that the Democratic Party missed that history lesson; a long time ago, the “Sedition Act” was enacted by John Adams, and it damaged his presidency bad enough that he was not reelected to a second term. The “Sedition Act” was used to attempt to limit criticism of government. It was later removed because of the unconstitutionality of the limitation to argument against the government. If this is what we can expect out of the press, our politicians, and the American people, themselves, we are without doubt headed for a downward spiral, from which we may never recover. Eerily enough, we may come to that uncertain fate where we may have to follow the actions of Daniel Shays and his cohorts, and get out the torches, pitchforks, and any other necessary means to prod those ne’er-do-wells in our society to fall back in line. If only Ben Franklin and his contemporaries could see us now, for certain they’d be proud . . . naught!