The President is Going After the First Amendment and Free Speech, Screams Fox

Fox News' outrage at President Obama’s critical remarks about their network is becoming hysterical. It’s not a simple matter of their being pissed at his criticism. No, the President is trying to shut them down. He’s going after the First Amendment just as he went after the Second. And he’s sending the country down the tubes because without a free Fox there is no free America. So, at least, said “legal analyst” Peter Johnson Jr., appearing on Fox and Friends for the second morning in a row.

We have previously noted that Johnson is also Roger Ailes’ personal attorney, and speculated that he might be acting as a stand-in for Fox's chief. Since Johnson also appeared on Hannity last night, and maybe on other shows as well, I speculate that he's speaking for Ailes in this case, and that the F&F segment was part of a Carefully Orchestrated Outrage Strategy.

Brian Kilmeade fed Johnson the appropriately sensational opening lines: "After going after the Second Amendment, President Obama, unhappy with freedom of speech, is going after the First Amendment.” Indeed he is, agreed Johnson, as the chyron shouted FIRST GUNS, NOW FREE SPEECH. “The imperial Presidency playbook is open." The First Amendment is "seriously in doubt,” he added, when the President embraces those that echo his talking points, and brands anyone who seeks to “foster debate” as an “enemy of the state.” GOING AFTER FREE SPEECH, the chyron hollered.

Of course he would, said Kilmeade, right on cue. Obama’s got all the Democrats and all the mainstream media and even a few scared Republicans in his camp – “everyone but Fox and Rush apparently.” BIAS ALERT, the chyron screamed.

Johnson then took Fox's outraged-victim message out to the stratosphere. Obama is not just criticizing Fox; he’s threatening the free press that is the bulwark of our democracy. “Ask Thomas Jefferson,” pontificated Johnson. “Ask Alexis de Tocqueville (I might, gentle reader, but they are both sort of like – ahem- dead. Died without having heard of Fox News, poor guys.) “Look at our history. Without a free press, there is not a free America. Without a free Fox, there is not a free America.... Fox is doing its job. ‘Fair and balanced’ means something, especially in a media that’s in the tank across the board, and the President does not like that.”

Doesn’t it make you sleep better at night, gentle reader, knowing that Fox is standing all alone (except for Rush of course) between you and that imperial dictatorial bully in the White House? After this, I expect that Obama will shut the network down and throw all its staff in the slammer. That's what imperial dictators generally do.

Follow @NewsHounds

Follow @NewsHoundEllen

Do you like this post?

Showing 39 reactions

commented 2013-10-19 11:44:42 -0400 · Flag

Obama is just wrong for what he’s doing. He doesn’t deserve to live, in my opinion. Freedom of speech is what was making us come out of debt in the first place. The reason wh y he wants to take are freedom of speech is cause he believes we don’t have a right to speak for are selfs. He is sending this country down the drain and the people with it. In my opinion, we need another president like Ronald Regan. He wasn’t the best president. But, he did a whole lot better than Obama. I didn’t vote for Obama. I new when he became president. He was going to make this country worse. And, you can make a call or whatever u have to do. But, I hope he reads this. He can go to hell.

commented 2013-01-31 11:42:41 -0500 · Flag

U Mad? commented 16 hours ago· Flag
And regarding the Fairness Doctrine:

The only reason the left wants it reinstated is to silence Conservative talk radio. Thats it. The left hates the fact that conservative radio is highly popular but very few want to listen to the left. You cant compete when its actually fair so you want to put in a law to limit free speech; but only conservative free speech.

I’m not interested in bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine,” I’d like to see something called an “Honesty Doctrine.” That would do two things: Make sure that there are concequenses for dishonesty, Lies, and false equivilancies that run rampant on talk radio. And secondly, it would naturally eliminate most rightwing talk radio programming, which would likely be replaced by more left leaning hosts who tend to be much more honest than the Lying tools that now occupy the radio dial.
Facts and honesty replacing facts pulled from there ass’s and lying to there own audience.
Sounds like a win win to me.

commented 2013-01-31 10:14:19 -0500 · Flag

Once again Fox and right wing radio are using a false boogieman to distract what the President really said. He’s not trying or wants to shut down Fox, Rush or any of his clones. He was simply pointing out the truth that several Republicans are fearful that if they ever show any signs of compromise they’ll have to face the wrath of attacks from Fox and all the other fire breathing talk radio hosts, or Tea Party members who walk around dressed like Benjamin Franklin.

Personally I would like to allow them all the free speech they have a right to. Fox and Rush both turn off the swing and moderate voters who decide our elections, with their extremist ranting where they rightfully come across as bat shit crazy to those in the middle who naturally turn to the Democratic Party. Besides they provide great material for Comedy Central.

commented 2013-01-31 02:28:05 -0500 · Flag

AAP, you forgot the part about that he “doesn’t have to listen” to us, while he pretends to be reasonable.

commented 2013-01-31 02:12:07 -0500 · Flag

But you would care if you weren’t a mushroom. And that really is the whole crux of the Fox and Rushbo hold on the rwnj masses. Their followers are in a bubble and have no escape. It’s like an intervention is necessary.

Wow, I had no idea playing with trolls could be so fun. Buh Bye now.

commented 2013-01-31 02:10:50 -0500 · Flag

You cannot conceive of the fact that you have no right to force people to listen to you.

Says the guy who defends Jesse Watters and Griff Jenkins when they come up. BTW, whenever you feel like addressing an actual fact that was directed your way, and not just rehashing your little “It’s wrong if I disagree!” pity party, you be sure to let me know.

commented 2013-01-31 02:04:20 -0500 · Flag

Bush/Nazi comparisons are shameful, but carry some basis in fact: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

commented 2013-01-31 01:56:50 -0500 · Flag

The rest of the post is your interpretations of Obama’s actions. I really don’t care how you interpret what he said.

commented 2013-01-31 01:50:24 -0500 · Flag

Ok then, what does the rest of my post say?

commented 2013-01-31 01:46:07 -0500 · Flag

In his New York Post column of Wednesday, August 20, 2003, page 29, entitled “In the Land of Bush Haters,” Rich Lowry writes:

“President Bush is routinely portrayed as a Nazi on left-wing Web sites, which post pictures of Bush with a Hitler mustache and sell T-shirts with Bush’s name spelled with a Swastika.”

Proving Lowry’s point, on the left-wing Web site Counterpunch.com, Dave Lindorff, a contributor to The Nation magazine and Salon.com, wrote in an article titled “Bush and Hitler: The Strategy of Fear”:

“It’s going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush administration’s fear-mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels [….] are not at all out of line. Hitler would be proud that an American president is emulating him in so many ways.”

commented 2013-01-31 01:41:16 -0500 · Flag

Don’t know how the lines showed up in that one paragraph but it reads the way I typed it.

commented 2013-01-31 01:39:34 -0500 · Flag

I don’t recall the ‘Nazi’ thing being used against ‘W’—it didn’t rear its ugly head until the teaparty showed up with posters of the president with the Hitler mustache. Be that as it may here are some facts for you:

President Obama doesn’t want to shut Fox or Rushbo down. He couldn’t even if he wanted to. Here’s what he wanted to do when he made the comments about Fox and Rushbo punishing republican politicians for ‘compromising’ or as we like to call it ‘doing their jobs’, you know, governing.

—He knew that the mushrooms wouldn’t be looking elsewhere for their news. Why would they, they’re mushrooms. Fox and rushbo have done their jobs.

—He knew Fox and Rushbo would take the bait and make a big deal about 1st amend rights, etc, etc. And in doing so they would have to play what the President said on THEIR air because the mushrooms aren’t going anywhere else to see the Presidents comments.

~~- By baiting Fox and Rushbo, all the mushrooms got a chance to see the President actually call out Fox and Rushbo for what they really did -~~ and that was punish republican politicians for doing their jobs by working with the Dems.

This way the mushrooms got actual “news” and got it almost in real time.

commented 2013-01-31 01:36:42 -0500 · Flag

And the people who run this site don’t have to let me post anything on here. And the government cannot and should not make them. You have a view point. When you use the government to shut me up so you can tell me your view point you have violated my rights. You have the right to voice your view points. You do not have the right to force me to broadcast them.

You cannot grasp that. You cannot conceive of the fact that you have no right to force people to listen to you. That is why the Fairness Doctrine will never come back. No one with any sense will let it.

commented 2013-01-31 01:24:04 -0500 · Flag

Im defending their right to have those view points.

No, you’re not… you’re telling us how, if you ran a radio station, you wouldn’t let anyone who disagreed with you on the air, even if there is a legit reason for them to air their side of the issue/story. Apparently on no other grounds than that the law in place to uphold their 1st and 6th amendment rights against the media is repealed.

Ironically on a site where you’re the point of view that’s disagreed with.

commented 2013-01-31 01:16:29 -0500 · Flag

You are the one that either doesn’t understand how it really works or don’t care how it works because you want to shut the other side up.

You still haven’t explained how that works. By your own definition, all it does is makes sure the other view is represented fairly. How is this shutting anyone up? If anything, it’s a violation of the 6th amendment’s confrontation clause to tell them to fuck off because “I don’t have to hear your side of this, just don’t listen to mine!”.

And if you tried to present your side on a network that did that to you, you’d be crying about your 1st and 6th all day long.

And you damn sure don’t have the right to make me listen to or air your side.

Actually, if you’re billed as a news outlet… you do.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Let me point out the only one you’ll even read:

— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.

I counter with:

*— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.

— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.*

The conservatives are the ones that have proven to us that they cannot do this by choice, and need a law to make them. You personally have not only proven that you don’t know shit about this particular doctrine, but you have also made it abundantly clear that you don’t know what censorship means.

Otherwise, you wouldn’t be making stupid comments like the free speech of others violates your rights if you hear something you don’t agree with. It’s their right to say it, it’s the responsibility of a responsible outlet to air it so their viewers hear the opposing view from the horse’s mouth.

But, by all means… post something to make yourself look ever dumber and more bigoted. We’ve allowed you to do it here so far, even though you admit you wouldn’t extend the same courtesy if this was your site.

commented 2013-01-31 00:48:53 -0500 · Flag

“Brayin” that George Bush was a Nazi wasn’t “news” either, but you don’t mind when the left does it. Its a political view point. I might not agree with your opinions and views but I believe you have to the right to have them. The problem is, your side doesn’t believe anyone should believe anything other than what they tell them.

commented 2013-01-31 00:34:28 -0500 · Flag

Im defending their right to have those view points.

commented 2013-01-31 00:24:41 -0500 · Flag

I don’t get offended if you call someone on a lie. I get offended when you want to take away my rights.

commented 2013-01-31 00:18:37 -0500 · Flag

Its not about getting equal air time. You can have all the air time you want. You can get you a radio station and broad cast liberal view points 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. But you don’t have the right to come into my radio station and demand that I air 12 hours of your view points, or 6 hours or 10 minutes. I do not have to air your view points. And that is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine does. It forces me to do something I don’t want to do. You are forcing me to air your view point to my audience in some twisted sense of fairness. I don’t owe you anything. The Fairness Doctrine takes away my right to broadcast what I want on my radio station.

I understand exactly how the FD works. It forces people to do something they don’t want to do. It takes away their right to so something that is their right to do. You are the one that either doesn’t understand how it really works or don’t care how it works because you want to shut the other side up. I don’t have to listen to your side. You don’t have to listen to mine. And you damn sure don’t have the right to make me listen to or air your side.

commented 2013-01-31 00:12:00 -0500 · Flag

You don’t have to listen to anything you don’t want, but you shouldn’t expect to take away my right to listen to it, or anyone else’s right to listen to it. The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” takes away rights. When you support policies that take away our basic rights then you’re cheering for the wrong side.

commented 2013-01-31 00:10:22 -0500 · Flag

Ok, you obviously don’t understand how the fairness doctrine works, otherwise you wouldn’t try to insult my intelligence with that BS “50/50” garbage.

Let’s say a debate gets three segments of airtime, totalling… let’s say 27 minutes. nine minutes each. Let’s say that one segment is just a republican- they could or would only book the Republican. The next two segments they book both, but the Democrat feels they can say their peace in only three, while the Republican talks the other six both times.

In minutes, this seems disproportionate, but the Democrats felt they only needed six of the 18 minutes they were given in the bi-partisan panels. When ABC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, MSNBC and NBC Nightly News have panelists from both sides on, they do that. Interruptions are rare, no one tells a guest to shut up, no one cuts the mic, there are no insults, one side isn’t ignored while they patiently wait on a rebuttal, and the time they give is their choice, with the only limit being the total time given to the segment overall.

That is the Fairness doctrine still in action almost 20 years after it was abolished, and conservative media is the only group that doesn’t still follow it as common courtesy. In fact, your insistence that it’s censorship answers my second question nicely, even through your obvious attempt to duck it. That would be hell on earth for Fox News to show that much respect to anyone… but if the other networks evened out (which yes, I would approve of), they don’t have as far to go working on it. Their partisans aren’t as severe, and even MSNBC has their fair share of non-partisans, which is more than I can say for Fox, who only let’s a couple hosts occassionally be fair on one or two segments out of a whole week of broadcasts.

Which brings me to the first of my follow-up questions: Even by your bullshit definition of the doctrine, how is it censorship? Left, right and independent all get equal time. The channel does 9 hours of commentary a day, they can divide it into three hours for hosts of each leaning. On every channel- they don’t like ____ for “x” view, they can go to ____. They don’t like any of them, they can reflect on why.

Oh, I forgot- It’s censorship because the view you don’t agree with gets to talk, too.

commented 2013-01-30 23:49:14 -0500 · Flag

No one can deny that conservatives dominate radio and liberals dominate tv. It is what it is. Sure there’s some conservatives on tv just as there’s liberals on the radio, but for the most part each dominates their little share of the media (though the liberals get the papers too; maybe the papers should have to have half-and-half too? The New York Times would have to fire half their staff and hire Ann Coulter AND Sean Hannity just to have a shot at balancing it out.)

So if you want half the radio to go liberal you have to also agree that half the tv AND Newspapers have to also have a rebuttal to every political view point. Sounds peachy. Having the government tell people what they can and cannot air on radio, tv and newspapers. Sounds familiar. Sounds like something that happened before years ago that didn’t end well. What was that?

commented 2013-01-30 22:58:13 -0500 · Flag

I answered both of your questions. You just dont want to hear the answers. And its not about ratings. Its about the government forcing an opposing view point onto people that dont want to listen to it.

But ill answer your questions in a different way.

Suppression of free speech: Say a radio station has 24 hours of conservative talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine will force them to air at least 12 hours of liberal view points. What does that do? It takes away that stations right to air conservative view points for those 12 hours. The Fairness Doctrine takes away their right to air conservative view points when they want to. Thats violating their Freedom of speech. They should be able to broadcast what they want when they want. Thats whats so great about this country. But the Fairness Doctrine takes away that right.

Im not really sure what your second question is but Ill assume its about how conservative radio exploded and liberal radio died. Thats the free market. The radio stations started playing what the public wanted to hear, not what the government wanted them to hear. The reason liberal radio fails is because the majority dont want to listen to it. If they did then the script would be flipped and Liberals would dominate talk radio.

Now answer my question: If you think the fairness doctrine is a good thing then shouldnt it also be applied to the TV media? Shouldnt MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN etc all have to dedicate half of their news shows to conservative view points? Shouldnt Rachel Maddow have to cut her show in half and allow the other half to be a conservative rebuttal? Same with all liberal shows on TV. If you support a Fairness Doctrine in radio shouldnt it also apply to television?

commented 2013-01-30 22:44:33 -0500 · Flag

You didn’t answer either of my questions, U Mad… you just threw a pity party around repeating the ratings game argument.

In case you haven’t noticed, we kind of don’t care about ratings- except when there’s a good case to believe that the way Fox News is acting may be tied to a decline.

As Rachel Maddow put it: Spongebob gets higer ratings than almost any show out there. Does that make it the most accurate portrayal of the ocean?

Oh, and don’t assume anything gets high ratings because people “like it”- Fox News gets a lot of it’s ratings from chain sponsors having their TVs locked to it. People from areas with large numbers of offended demographics petition for them to change it to sports or family programming all the time.

commented 2013-01-30 21:27:02 -0500 · Flag

Conservative radio is supported by the public because the majority of the public want to listen to it. They dont want to listen to liberal radio. Liberals have the same right as conservatives do to have their own radio stations and radio shows. The public doesnt support it though.

What the Fairness Doctrine would do is force conservative radio to air liberal view points. Should the government force MSNBC to provide an opposing view point everytime Lawrence Odonnell or Rachel Maddow say anthing negative about Republicans? Should the government force this very website to publish an opposing view point to everything thats posted on here? Because thats what the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” does. It forces opposing view points onto people who have already chosen NOT to listen to them.

And yes, conservative radio did take off when it was abolished. Because radio was no longer shackled with having to air something that the majority of the listeners didnt want to listen to. I should have the freedom to listen to conservative radio and ONLY conservative radio if thats what i want to do. The government should NEVER tell me what I have to listen to OR that I HAVE to listen to an opposing view point.

Liberals have the same opportunity that Conservatives have on radio. The majority of the people CHOOSE to listen to conservative radio and CHOOSE NOT to listen to liberal radio. Forcing someone to listen to your viewpoint is WRONG.

commented 2013-01-30 21:07:03 -0500 · Flag

*And regarding the Fairness Doctrine:

The only reason the left wants it reinstated is to silence Conservative talk radio. Thats it.*

Ok, I’m going to bite on this one by asking two questions:

1) Here is the legal definition of the Fairness Doctrine.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fairness+Doctrine

How about showing me where it says conservative free speech will be limited by it? A station can still be liberal or conservative overall, they just have to present enough of the opposing view to constitute an informed opinion of the other side.

“The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.”

2) Directly related- Do you know the circumstances of the veto against the fairness doctrine in 1987? Regan ran a veto against it when it was renewed and about to be promoted to permanent law. Around the time of the veto, his approval was falling fast:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/03/us/poll-shows-reagan-approval-rating-at-4-year-low.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Shortly after he did this, what happened? Opposing viewpoint guests vanished from shows with right-wing hosts. AM radio like Limbaugh began their signature rants.

Leftists and moderates didn’t do that; conservatives did. Can you tell me how popular they were before 1987? Speak up, can’t hear ya.

Ok, I’ll answer for ya… not even on barnyard value. They couldn’t sell without being trash hosts, they couldn’t be trash hosts while it was intact. All a self-fulfilling prophecy for Ronald Reagan to go out on a high note.

commented 2013-01-30 20:21:27 -0500 · Flag

Sure. Except I havent said anything hateful at all, despite having nearly everything i post met with name calling, insults and degradation.

commented 2013-01-30 20:19:22 -0500 · Flag

Thanks. You deserve it. You’re like the Karl Pilkington of hateful, retarded, right wing whackadoodles.

commented 2013-01-30 20:06:53 -0500 · Flag

Nice rebuttal.

commented 2013-01-30 20:00:34 -0500 · Flag

Dear UMad,

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA…

Oh you’re hysterical with all your tinfoiled hat nonsense about life inside the right wing bubble. Seriously, you should take your act to a comedy club and try it out with the audience. I’m sure they’ll be very responsive.

1 2 Next →