Andrew Coyne continues to liveblog the witch hunt in Vancouver. I loved this bit:
We're going through an interview Awan gave on Mike Duffy Live. He tells Duffy that this isn't a case of free speech versus minority rights. Rather, he says, Maclean's can go on publishing what it likes, Steyn can write whatever he likes, just so long as "the Muslim community" gets a right of reply. (I'm paraphrasing. The video of the interview is here.) So really, what they're proposing (he explains in the interview) is an extension of free speech.
I think I see his point. Every time Maclean's wants to publish an article some group doesn't like, they just have to give them an equal amount of space in the magazine. Double the space, at twice the cost to Maclean's - but zero cost to the complainants. That is "free" speech.
That is also the "Fairness Doctrine" in a nutshell. It's why, if we have a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress, one of the first things they will attempt to do will be to resurrect that atrocity against free speech, in the hopes that it will shut down "right wing" radio.
Of course (and fortunately), the Fairness Doctrine only applies to over-the-air broadcast of television and radio (with the excuse that the spectrum is limited, and therefore ultimately owned by the public). What would probably happen if it were back in force is that Limbaugh and others would just get chased off the air waves to satellite (as has happened with over-air- television politics shows, to satellite and cable), and a lot more people would buy XM so they could continue to get a vigorous discussion of politics.
What is being proposed in Canada is to not just institute a fairness doctrine, but to extend it to print. Which, as Coyne points out, is utterly inimical to free speech, and would shut down any publication whatsoever that was "controversial." Which means any publication that goes against the politically correct consensus of the day.
Ah, wouldn't it follow that an uncouth barbarian without regard to politically correct discourse, as a complainant, force a politically correct publication to print his outrageous opinion?
Does the Fairness Doctrine bite both ways? Is it consistent? (somehow I doubt it).
It would be small piece of ironic humor (in a scary world) if the NYT was forced to print at cost the unedited musings of a Rush Limbaugh.
It's sad to see that actual human rights mean so little in our neighbor to the North. It shows just how fragile our own rights are, if even England and her children can lose them so quickly and without apparent concern from their elected governments.
It's why, if we have a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress, one of the first things they will attempt to do will be to resurrect that atrocity against free speech, in the hopes that it will shut down "right wing" radio.
I wouldn't count on McCain to uphold free speech rights, either. McCain has already done far more to damage free speech (though McCain-Feingold restrictions on political speech) than Obama has (though perhaps you are right to suspect Obama's crypto-commie leanings).
Of course (and fortunately), the Fairness Doctrine only applies to over-the-air broadcast of television and radio (with the excuse that the spectrum is limited, and therefore ultimately owned by the public).
That was Fairness Doctrine 1.0. What was the excuse for the Hon. Sen. McCain to try to bring the Internet under the umbrella of federally-regulated speech? Because the government invented the Internet? Because they paid for the fiber-optic cables? How about, "just because"? Because any political speech with any reach can affect any election, so under the theory of McCain-Feingold, it holds the threat of corruption, and stamping out corruption by limiting speech is an excuse that the courts have traditionally blessed. Brace yourself for Fairness Doctrine 2.0, in which all forms of media (except left-wing "legitimate news organizations") are grandly introduced to "fairness". It's like the Canadian model for free speech....
BBB
p.s. Why is it that Democratically-controlled Congress of the early '90's didn't force the ISS to be named "The International Space Station Fairness"? ;-)
I live in Toronto and have been following this pretty closely. Fortunately it seems like enough people are starting to get interested that by the time Steyn et al lose (and they will) they'll have a good chance of winning an appeal in front of a real court.
Still, it's frightening and sad that it got this far.
Sadly, the bit you quoted isn't anywhere near the worst of the Canadian Islamic Congress's version of 'free speech'.
"Rather, he says, Maclean's can go on publishing what it likes, Steyn can write whatever he likes..."
Well, then, it isn't speech that is likely to expose identifiable groups to hatred or contempt (paraphrasing the relevant section of the Canadian law under which the Human Rights Commissions operate), is it? The whole set of proceedings is a farce.
There's lots more liveblogging (in more detail) at Ezra Levant's blog.
McCain has already done far more to damage free speech (though McCain-Feingold restrictions on political speech) than Obama has
You're an idiot. McCain-Feingold's crimp on free speech is, first of all, entirely nonpartisan. Both sides are forced into the shadowy world of 527s and bundling. The only joker in the deck is the fact that the MSM is in the tank for the Democrats, so they get a freebie. But that's not McCain's fault.
Secondly, it's unintentional, and sufficiently nonobvious that everyone on both sides loved it when it first was passed, and George W. Bush and Sandra Day O'Connor signed off on it. Sure, we all realize it's a First Amendment disaster now. Hindsight is always 20/20. McCain deserves a kick in the pants for this screw-up, but only a little one, since most other supposedly wise heads liked it, too, at the time.
By contrast, the "Fairness Doctrine" has no unexplored mystery consequences. We've had it before, we know exactly what it does. And the people who want to bring it back want to do so precisely because it will snuff speech on one side of the political spectrum more than the other. That's world's different from McCain's misguided but probably genuinely nonpartisan intentions with BCRA.
You know, we ought to stop talking about Canada and do something about it. I mean, this pissant country only has 30 million people and a lot of them in the western provinces are already conservatives. Why don't we just have a couple million American conservatives, from states that don't particularly need them, emigrate to Ontario in time for the next election and bring a little regime change to Canuckistan?
Also note: they have loads of oil.
> Secondly, it's unintentional, and sufficiently nonobvious that everyone on both sides loved it when it first was passed,
What a crock. Bush's signature wasn't dry when the first lawsuit was filed, with the senate Repub "leadership" as plaintiffs.
> But that's not McCain's fault.
It may not be McCain's fault that MSM is an arm of the Dem party, but it was well known and he strengthened MSM's role in politics by crippling others.
Was he evil or stupid?
Great, nonpartisan restrictions on free speech are STILL RESTRICTIONS. What part of the 1st amendment don't you understand? Speak your mind Carl, I won't restrict your speech...someday someone else might.