Peter Ferrara Rush’s fans have rights, too quotes a question asked by Justice Scalia during oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.
“Do you think that there’s a possibility that the First Amendment interest is greater when what the government is trying to stifle is not just a speaker who wants to say something but also a hearer who wants to hear what the speaker has to say?”
The right of free speech implies a right to listen. Without listeners, the speech would be wasted. In the case of talk radio, the listeners have a many to one ratio. The rights of large numbers of people are threatened by proposed censorship.
Peter Ferrara points out other cases in which the same concept has been raised. Will the Supreme Court up hold those precedents? Will a majority of the court side with Justice Scalia?
I am not convinced that we can depend on either contingency coming to pass. We need to apply maximal political pressure to prevent the passage and enforcement of censorship laws and regulations. Representatives and Senators must be made to fear for their jobs if they support censorship, its our first line of defense. The initial case against McCain-Feingold confirmed the magnitude of the risk we take in relying on the last line of defense.
I am now informed by Up Pompeii that mayor Freddy Thielemans had just given permission to a demonstration/march on sunday Sept. the 9th. in Brussels. The demonstration will proclame that it wasn’t Islamists but Americans and Jewishes who stood behind the act of terrorisms against World Trade Center on Sep. the 11th 2001.
The demonstration will move from Brussels northern station to the southern in protest against “Georges Bush’s involvement with the 9/11 2001 terror attack’s in New York and on the Pentagon”.
The demonstration is led by a left-wing anti-American group who calls itself “United for truth” and that works with conspiracy theories.
The Mayor would need a ladder to kick a snake’s belly! He banned SIOE from demonstrating on the 11th, but permits the AssWholes to spew their feces in the streets of Brussels.
There are at present 6942 signatures on the petition demanding issuance of a permit for SIOE’s demonstration. For the love of liberty, go now and sign that petition and spread the word if you have not yet done so!
The Mayor of Brussels has banned the demonstration planned for 9/11. Please join me in endorsing this petition calling on him to reverse that idiotic decision!! This petition has 1104 signatures, lets make it grow!!!
Brussels demonstration Sept. 11 2007
View Current Signatures – Sign the Petition
To: Brussels Major The Brussels mayor, the Socialist Freddy Thielemans, has, on 9th of August 2007 sent out a press release in which he has banned a demonstration with a minute of silence to commemorate the victims of 9/11 on the 11th sept in Brussels. The reason for the prohibition is that he says he cannot guarantee public safety and that he won’t disturb the Islamic section of the population in Brussels. By invoking the lack of public safety, he is precisely highlighting SIOE’s demonstration title:
Stop the Islamisation of Europe.
SIOE’s message through the 4 slogans is exactly to warn against conditions such as these, where people no longer can use their freedom of expression and feel secure, but the shocking facts are that these conditions already reign at the heart of the EU. SIOE’s demonstration will of course happen, as a peaceful utterance of opinion, an utterance of opinion for which Moslems have countless times received permission to demonstrate in Brussels.
Therefore it is, of course, completely absurd to ban a peaceful demonstration because they are afraid of violent muslim counter-demonstrators!
We kindly ask the major of Brussels to alter his decision and let the free people of Europe demonstrate for their civil rights. We want our right to have a minute of silence to commemorate the victims of 9/11 !
Radio communications are transmitted by means of electromagnetic radiation whose wavelength is considerably longer than that of light. We can neither see nor hear that radiation; we use electronic equipment to make it audible.
No air is necessary for the radio communication process, between the microphone and the loudspeaker. The electromagnetic radiation is not public; it is generated, modulated, amplified and transmitted privately. Specific frequencies are allocated by the FCC to prevent signals from jamming each other. There is no special magic involved. If broadcasters agreed on frequency allocation and power levels, no government intervention would be required.
Newspapers are printed privately, transported on public streets and highways, delivered to and read by consumers. Those consumers use sunlight to read their newspapers. Who owns the sunlight? Is it public?
Now explain some rational basis why government coercion should be used to determine the content of broadcast speech; why broadcasters should be told that they can’t air Rush Limbaugh’s show, or how many hours of it they can air or what he can or can not talk about.
Now explain why the government should not also control the news and opinions printed in the New York Times & USA Today. After all, they are transported on the public roads.
If they can regulate Rush, they can also regulate what you say and hear on your cell phone. Then they can also control the content which passes through your wireless computer network.
Do not be deceived: the ‘fairness doctrine’ is an attempt to violate the first amendment; to censor politically sensitive speech. Tell its proponents to go to Hell and burn forever!