Back On The First Amendment Soapbox

Every time I see a cop who thinks his badge gives him some sort of super powers, I get steam coming from my ears. The fact is that most cops don't like members of the media, presumably because they don't like being caught ignoring people's civil rights. I hate to sound like a law-enforcement hater, because I swear I'm not. But every time I see video (and I've seen plenty)of a police officer forcibly deciding what is and what is not appropriate for a photographer or cameraman to shoot, I think it gives police a bad name. This cameraman was detained in the back of a police car for more than an hour. If you or I did that, we'd be charged with kidnapping. The fact is, the cop had no right confiscating the guy's camera or detaining him to begin with! Watch and learn:



What cops need to realize and remember is simple. Members of the media and members of the public are one and the same. If you want to keep the media from shooting video of something and you have a legitimate reason, then shut down the street to everyone. I can't tell you how many times as a reporter I was blocked from being at a crime scene, even when members of the public were allowed to roam freely on the other side of the yellow police tape. That's not only unfair, it's also illegal. I was also thrown off the grounds of Dulles airport one time for asking members of the public questions. The officer decided I was harassing people. I most certainly was not - certainly not as much as the hare krishnas who used to walk up to complete strangers at the airport and solicit them for money. No one ever stopped them.

Again - treat members of the media like you treat members of the public (because we ARE members of the public), and you'll get no beef from me.

But that cop in Newark should lose his badge.

The Fairness Doctrine Is Inherently UNfair!

Now that the election is over, and the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, there will be some movement from within Congress to control the media as well. A frightening number of Democratic leaders want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, a pre-Reagan era regulation that requires broadcasters to give equal access to points of view from across the political spectrum. This would force a station like WMAL to carry an equal number of programs that are left-leaning to counter the station's successful right-leaning lineup.

Proponents say Americans need and deserve to hear from all points of view as it concerns the important events of the day, and that regulating content like this will ensure Americans have that kind of access. There are a million problems with this line of thought, but let me hit you with just a few reasons why the Fairness Doctrine is WAY WAY WAY wrong.

• Congress' approval rating with the public is at 18 percent. Would you want someone who you agree with only 18 percent of the time controlling the remote control in your house? Me neither. I only agree with my wife about half the time, and I still don't control the remote!


• This is a not-so-veiled attempt to get payback on conservative talk radio. A big F.U. to the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world for making liberals' lives so miserable over the past 20 years. The problem is that the liberal argument of conservative unfairness carries no weight. How can you argue the conservative point of view is too strong when the Democrats now control Congress and the White House? Rush Limbaugh may be a painful rectal itch to Democrats, but he is not a cancer.


• If you mess with conservative talk, you're going to kill the ratings for an entire format of commercial radio - an industry that is already having a hard time making ends meet. And you're going to cause great damage to public stations as well. Do you really think successful NPR stations are going to be able to raise as much money as they do now if their listeners are asked to contribute to stations that now have 50 percent conservative content? And if you are a fan of NPR - or Air America, for that matter - Do you really want the government messing with your programming, either?


• I would be willing to bet that a large majority of the people who bitch about Rush Limbaugh have never even listened to Rush Limbaugh. How can you be harmed by content that are not in any way exposed to?


• The fact is - The market will correct itself without government intervention. The same world that gave us Fox news is now giving us MSNBC. Broadcasters are motivated by money. Money is generated by ratings. People who generate ratings are going to be on radio and TV, whether they are Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann.

You don't need to blow up broadcast radio and TV to ensure fairness - especially when those mediums are getting their asses kicked by the very home of open opinion - the internet. The web is where opinions of all stripes are being formed in the 21st century - not on radio or television.

We should not be eager to allow the government to decide how much information of a certain political bent is deemed to be enough or not enough. The free market is doing well enough on its own on that score, and any attempt by the Democratic Congress and the Obama Administration to regulate "fairness" will ultimately create the groundswell of conservative noise that they will indeed be endeavoring to mute.

You have rights, people! Protect them!

Another Reason To Say "God Bless America"

The next time you find yourself cursing PETA...
Or think about letting Congress bring back the "Fairness" Doctrine...
Or become outraged that foul language and dirty music lyrics are ruining our children's minds...
Or you get pissed at anti-war protesters like Cindy Sheehan...
Or wish that transsexuals were locked up in mental hospitals instead of being allowed to walk free among the rest of us...

Just imagine a world where you had no right to free speech. A place where blogs like this one - in fact, most blogs, except for the ones written and approved by the State - were banned.

A place like China.

China 'yet to approve protests'
By Michael Bristow
BBC News, Beijing

China has received a total of 77 applications to stage protests during the Olympic Games period - but none has been approved.
Beijing's public security bureau said 74 applications were "withdrawn", two were "suspended" and one was "vetoed".
China was praised by the International Olympic Committee when it said protest areas would be set up for the Olympics.
But it appears no application has managed to meet China's strict rules on who can and cannot stage a protest.
The news came as the IOC called the Beijing Olympics a "success", even though the Games are only half-way through.

'Incomplete'
The protest applications involved a total of 149 people, including three foreigners, according to a spokesperson from Beijing's public security bureau.
The majority were withdrawn because the problems they raised could be better dealt with by "relevant authorities or departments through consultation".
State-run Xinhua news agency, which reported the spokesperson's comments, said these problems involved disputes about work, health and welfare issues.

Two applications were suspended because "their procedures were incomplete", the spokesperson said. "It doesn't mean their applications have been rejected," the spokesperson said. The vetoed application was turned down because it violated China's law on demonstrations and protests, Xinhua reported.
That law - brought in shortly after the Tiananmen killings in 1989 - requires applicants to provide a range of information about an intended protest.
This includes the type of posters and slogans to be used, how many people intend to take part, and the names and addresses of protest organisers.

A demonstration can be turned down if it could harm national sovereignty or unity, or even if the police suspect it will "undermine public order". Protesters were supposed to be able to demonstrate in Shijie, Zizhuyuan and Ritan parks during the Olympics.
But no areas appear to have been set up for protesters inside the parks, which are being heavily policed during the Olympics. Some would-be protesters even appear to have been arrested after making applications to stage demonstrations.

'Very relaxed'
Just before the announcement by the public security bureau, IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies praised China for the smooth running of the Games.
Things were going so well that a key meeting between the Chinese Olympic organisers and senior IOC officials had been postponed until Saturday, she said.
The Co-ordination Commission usually met every day during the Olympics but at these Games there had been little for them to discuss, Ms Davies said.
"It very much reflects the very relaxed and happy position the IOC is in, in terms of how it views the success of these Games," she added.


Freedom isn't free, people! God Bless America - and God Bless The First Amendment!

The N-Word

Usually, I try to be as timely as possible when presenting these blog entries... But I'm at least two full days beyond the news cycle on this one.


When it was revealed that Jesse Jackson used the "N-Word" during his Barack Obama nuts-cutting microphone scandal on Sunday, I hesitated to blog about it. After all, the N-word is about as nuclear as you can get these days. Its political and social implications go far deeper than I would ever care to discuss here. In fact, even as I write this, I feel as though I'm in a mine field... one slight misstep, and I'm a goner. So I shall tread carefully and bulletpoint my thoughts.

• Jesse Jackson is an ass and a hypocrite who has spent his career taking two steps forward and one step back on the issues of civil rights. Unfortunately, Jesse is spending more time these days taking one step forward and two steps back.

You know what? After sitting here for several more minutes, I realize there's not much more I can say about this. I had prepared a couple of video clips, including a killer quote from "Blazing Saddles" and a clip of Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Whoopi Goldberg arguing about the N-word. I have some definite thoughts about the issue, but I also don't need the hassle of trying to explain myself by potentially offending someone.

Of course, this also makes me guilty of cowardice and sloth, I suppose... But I think I'd rather be scared and lazy than be accused of being a racist.

I will say this. I am a First amendment hawk. I believe our right to use words as we choose is what ultimately gives us our greatest freedoms as Americans. The censorship of potentially offensive words only serves to empower those words... and empowers the asses who use them.

When Will They Leave John Hinckley Alone?

President Reagan's would-be assassin, John Hinckley, is back in court asking a federal judge to give him more unsupervised free time when he visits his Mom in Virginia Beach. Hinckley wants to be able to perform volunteer work and to take driving lessons. Prosecutors say Hinckley does not deserve more free time because he continues to have "continued inappropriate and unrealistic relationships with several women as well as a reluctance to accept responsibility for his own behavior".

Look - John Hinckley is never going to have an appropriate or realistic relationship with a woman. How could he? He's spent virtually his entire adult life in a mental institution, and before that, he was nuts! But should the fact that Hinckley is not, by "normal" standards, "normal" himself, does that mean he should spend his life rotting away behind the walls of St. E's?

I may be in the minority here, but I've long felt that John Hinckley has been given the shaft by the U.S. Justice system. A jury operating under the laws of our nation found Hinckley NOT GUILTY by reason of insanity for his attempted assassination of President Reagan. The government was not satisfied with that verdict, and prosecutors have done everything they can for the past 25 years to make sure Hinckley never again enjoys freedom. A lot of people seemingly agree - that despite the verdict, Hinckley should not have the right to walk among us - even if his doctors feel he is not a threat to himself or to others.

Hinnkley's doctors have long argued for more freedom for Hinckley. They obviously feel he has sufficiently recovered over the past 27 years to be out in public, and in fact, Hinckley has enjoyed a limited amount of unsupervised free time in recent years.

I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on television (or on radio, for that matter). I have no idea whether John Hinckley would be better off free in society or in a mental hospital. But I am far more willing to believe the medical advice of his doctors than I am of the federal prosecutors trying to keep him locked up.

I am a First Amendment and civil liberties hawk. Most Americans do not appreciate the rights they have because pragmatically their rights will never be tested in their lifetime. But people like John Hinckley - even partially broken, mentally-damaged John Hinckley - are living examples of WHY we must demand that individuals be allowed to enjoy their freedoms whenever possible. If Hinckley can be kept locked up, so could you or one of your loved ones in a similar situation. The government would like you to forget that, by the laws of our land, John Hinckley was found NOT GUILTY... NOT responsible for what he did. If he's not a threat (and his doctors clearly don't think he is), he should be free.

Otherwise, with the government running things, how free are the rest of us, really?