Michael Moore, the portly creator of leftist propaganda films is
a consistent thorn in the side of conservatives and other American
patriots. Two of his films,
”
Bowling for Columbine
”
and
”
Fahrenheit 9-11,
”
have been roundly condemned by many Americans, particularly on
the right side of the political spectrum, for their anti-Western,
anti-white, universalist message. But as a conservative, I would
defend to the limits of my abilities, his right to make films of
any political persuasion.
Michael Moore, the portly creator of leftist propaganda films is a consistent thorn in the side of conservatives and other American patriots. Two of his films, “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9-11,” have been roundly condemned by many Americans, particularly on the right side of the political spectrum, for their anti-Western, anti-white, universalist message. But as a conservative, I would defend to the limits of my abilities, his right to make films of any political persuasion.
Viewpoints that are mainstream or popular do not need the protection of the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is always the unpopular, the ugly, the irreverent, the disgusting, that is in need of legal protection. However, a series of recent legal and public developments is having the effect of diminishing our constitutional protections bit by bit.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, was passed by both houses of Congress and was signed by President Bush on Nov. 6, 2002. This incumbent protection bill makes it a felony for corporations, nonprofit advocacy groups and labor unions to run ads that criticize – or even name or show – members of Congress within 60 days of a federal election.
In addition, the reform act exempts the “press” from the restrictions of the act. This means that journalists will not be monitored regardless of how they handle comments on candidates, while individual citizens fall under Federal Election Commissions oversight mandate. Reluctant Republican members of Congress voted for this bill, in a show of political cynicism, hoping that President Bush would veto it, or that the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional.
Neither event happened and the act became the law of the land. The experience of the last two general elections has illustrated the act’s failure to eliminate big money donations from political campaigns – the main intention of the act. Record sums of money poured into political campaigns across the nation.
The so-called fairness doctrine was discontinued by the FCC in 1987, under Federal court order. This rule stated that broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, were required to cover controversial issues in their community and in doing so that had to offer a balanced viewpoint. In a 1974 ruling the Court found that the doctrine “inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.” (Miami Herald Publishing Co. vs. Tornillo) This was reaffirmed in 1984 in FCC vs. League of Women Voters. Howard Dean, John Kerry and Al Gore are just a few of the prominent Democrats that have advocated for a return of the fairness doctrine. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-NY, has introduced a bill in Congress to reinstate the fairness doctrine.
In the past week, there has been a shrill attack on ABC television and its parent Disney Corp., over the showing of its five-hour miniseries concerning the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. The controversy was over certain scenes which were critical of the Clinton administration’s indifference to the growing terrorist threat leading up to the conflagration on Sept. 11, 2001. Bill Clinton, ex-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and ex-Secretary of State Madeline Albright have been griping very publicly about the showing of this series. However classless, as private citizens these individuals have every right to voice their opinions.
But that is not all. A group of Senators that included Senators Reid (Utah), Stabenow (Michigan), Schumer (New York), Durbin (Illinois), and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney CEO Robert Iger demanding the program be canceled. According to its producers, the program was based upon the official 9/11 report prepared publicly and signed by prominent officials drawn from both parties. The letter represents a lightly veiled threat toward ABC and its affiliates by government officials to restrict or even cancel broadcast licenses through FCC oversight. The letter included the following language, “The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest.”
These senators are saying freedom of speech be damned. It is indeed chilling when government officials with real police power, as the Senate has over the FCC, threaten to shut down the right of free expression in an open democracy. This is action worthy of the old Soviet Union’s party bosses. The very definition of a free press is that citizens are free to criticize their government and its officials.
Al Kelsch is a Hollister resident who writes a weekly column for the Free Lance. He can be reached at
al******@ho******.com
.
