Obama Consults His Inner Petty Tyrant
Friday, September 26th, 2008
You know, if you’re going to run as the antidote to the current administration’s abuse of power, silencing of political foes, and suppression of dissent, sending chill letters threatening to shut down TV stations that run ads critical of you isn’t exactly the way to show off your bona-fides.

McCain’s hardly a paragon of free speech. But Obama’s choice to threaten government censorship as his first resort–while still a candidate–doesn’t bode well for how he may treat his critics as president.

--------------------------------------------------

I'll post the ad in question and all that right below.

Barack Obama vs. Free Speech
Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am

Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0

The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."

As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better.


http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html

Yes well that's what I mean about the Patriot Act...Bush used it to keep us safe. DEMS would use it against other Americans.

That's my fear.... sometimes things are good if they are used for the RIGHT reasons, but in the hands of those who lack respect for our form of govt? Deadly!

right.the patriot act is big brother and an excuse to harass innocent americans,not just foreigners who threaten america.i say get rid of it.it has been used to bypass the constitution.The CIA and the FBI should be able to gather intelligence without screwing with the bill of rights.

Reality check...the only ones I see wnating to use these against fellow Americans are LIBERALS.

That's YOUR party!!!!

How many times have I said on various threads that some posters who love Bush and assert "if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" arguments won't feel that way when the legislation is used against them? Those people are now alarmed about the Patriot Act?!?

HA HA HA

I think it's important to reveal McCain's lies. I invite the other side to do the same if they feel Obama is lying.

If the Obama campaign wants to use any and all legal means available to hold McCain to account then I say go for it. Should we scrap the Patriot Act? Yes, but guess what it will never happen. Giving anyone power is relatively easy. Reining it in is an entirely different matter.

REALITY CHECK!!!!

It's hypocritical to say BUSH is at fault for using a "tool" to keep us safe as opposed to DEMS who want to use it against Americans.

It's so typical of libs to miss those facts. Stop lumping everything in the same breath. It's irresponsible.

hahah

I love it!

A reality check from a poster who ignores reality at every turn.

Blind obedience is irresponsible.

Supporting legislation like the Patriot Act is irresponsible.

Ignoring facts, posting insults and pointing fingers is irresponsible.

Not just Bush is at fault for the Patriot Act. Every congressperson who voted for that piece of ****, unamerican legislation is responsiable. As is every citizen that accepts it and doesn't fight for it's repeal.

Oh, and if you think only the Dems are using it against average citizens you are dead wrong.

Without the patriot act, the Brooklyn Bridge would have been blown up. I like how people just like to ignore little facts like that.

B.S.

Why is it that other countries like England have been able to foil terrorist plots without legislation like the Patriot Act you think?

Number one rule in the book of How to Control people. Make them afraid. You are afraid aren't you?

It's really sad...you let the terrorists win.

ummm because they have the "Prevention of Terror Act of 2005"?

http://www.bigpicweblog.com/exp/index.php/weblog/2005/02/16/

I'm not a liberal on everything nor conservative on everything.I'm an independent.lol

I still say you should be able to catch terrorists without messing with the Bill of Rights unless of course you keep pushing fear to get support.We have so many gun toting people in this country ,what the hell are we afraid of?I choose to live life without seeing a terrorist behind every tree or letting the Government tell me how to feel and who to hate .They can't even catch Bin Laden for God sakes and are friends with Saudi Arabia who welcomes terrorists with open arms.I have always thought it was funny that when Bush does something stupid then all of a sudden a terrorist attack has been averted
or Al Quaida operatives were thwarted.Please.

The Patriot Act will not be fully implemented until they have finished seizing the financial markets.

They need to insure that we do not have the cash flow necessary to mount a credible defense against the use of the Patriot Act before they can effectively implement its worse provisions.

Now that scares me especially in light of recent events.

Adventure I am glad you are back because you are a very informed source of info.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. - Benjamin Franklin


The patriot act goes against our bill of rights. The sad thing is, many of the people called upon to execute the patriot act (soldiers and i believe most federal agencies) took a vow, "to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

My friends, we have domestic enemies of the constitution... I wonder if anyone will hold true to the vow.

Every politician who signed their name to the patriot act, violated their oath to the Constitution. That oath was their condition of employment. They are all guilty of treason against the republic, if you ask me.

but hasn't the Patriot Act been reviewed by the Supreme Court (as is their obligation) and been approved?