[First published February 16, 2005] I have called for the censorship of the media on the War on Terror, particularly the Iraq Battle, Highly secret information has been published for all the read, including our enemies. This has caused considerable outrage among bloggers: To give you a sample:
“Rummel . . . now “suggests destroying the First Amendment and the inalienable right to freedom of speech.” (link here)
“Last month R.J. Rummel . . . “announced that because so many libertarians oppose the Iraq war, he is no longer a libertarian but a ‘freedomist.’ This week we learned one of the differences between the two philosophies: freedomists don’t want a free press” (link here)
“Yet, apparently he doesn’t want “freedom for the media. That damn media, always getting in the way of the fight for freedom. What happens if the media isn’t censored now? Well…” (link here)
Interesting, that so many of those reacting to my call seem unaware of the actual censorship of the media. One would think that the media was able to print or say anything, and I was trying to initiate censorship. No way. As the link below illustrates, free speech is not free, and for publishing certain things the media is punished by the government. I am only trying to sensibly protect our soldiers and pursue our war on terrorism by restricting the media from giving “aid and comfort” to our enemies (part of the Constitution’s definition of treason in Article III, Section 3).
Of interest is why there is a large group of intelligent readers who don’t know or understand that the media is already censored. Could it be that they know this, but it is just that their loose rhetoric belies it. Or, they are just not thinking—not connecting the dots? Or maybe, there sense of proportion and importance is challenged. Well, I’ll leave this to the sociology of knowledge people, and simply say that I would rather preserve military secrets and sensitive information from the enemies of freedom than protect adults and children from seeing a raw, uncovered, naked female mammary gland.
Link of Note
”House Poised to OK Indecency Fine Increase” (2/16/05) By Genaro C. Armas
“A bill with strong bipartisan support would boost the maximum fine for indecency from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer. . . . The Federal Communications Commission . . . has stepped up enforcement of the indecency statute, perhaps most notably with a $550,000 fine against CBS for its 2004 Super Bowl broadcast that included Janet Jackson’s breast-baring “wardrobe malfunction.” Radio personality Howard Stern also has been a frequent target.
“Fines for indecent programming exceeded $7.7 million last year. Four years ago, FCC . . . fines totaled just $48,000.”