Little Hope Left for Speech, Press Ban

In the format and style of the SF Examiner's recent vacuity, Little Hope Left for Assault Weapons Ban, I'd like to offer up my own little vacuity lamenting the abortion of Patriot II and the government's failure to control the press during these dark times. I offer it up with all the sarcasm and cynicism I can muster.

If you have ever studied any history, you've heard or read of the power of ink upon paper forming just the right words at just the right time. Surely you have heard of the effects of certain 17th and 18th century pamphleteers both in England and the American colonies, the ones fomenting wars of rebellion and seeping with sedition.

After several states decided to rebel against the Union, Lincoln used his legendary political clout to push a nationwide ban on pro-secesionist press.

Maybe the press didn't have as much power back then. But the pro-secession ban apparently passed without any huge outcry about a guaranteed constitutional right to recite poetry or publish historical novels.

Things are very different today. The press might now be the most fearsome group of voter influence in existence. It boasts of informing millions, maybe tens of millions voters about the issues all across America.

The press has turned public opinion enough to cause Nixon and much of his staff to resign, and even cost a popular war president to lose re-election. This is not a force any politician is willing to flout.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has apparently already lost the battle to revive traditional war-time bans on unfavorable press. Several Congressman and Senators have vowed to kill any bill with such language before it is even introduced.

Last Sunday, politicians all across the U.S. and in some other nations as well, marked the 228th anniversary of a document that led to thousands of deaths. That day, several men, influenced by seditious pamphlets and treasonous speeches by radical terrorists, wrote a declaration of war against their lawful government. The resulting carnage killed thousands, and wounded thousands more.

Press control is clearly one of America's most polarizing issues. Many Americans demand balanced reporting that can only come from a fair vetting by government authorities. Others fiercely defend their first amendment right to pornographic poetry. Many large cities celebrate their controversial poets.

The big problem with the press is that it acts as if any restriction on any publication anywhere must inevitably lead to a complete confiscation of privately owned writing implements and printing presses.

Sadly, this means we're probably not going to see much more in the way of meaningful balancing of reporting, unless a large number of American voters get angry enough about it to scare politicians more than the press does.

Is that sufficient to illuminate just how vacuous the SF Examiner is? And why the hell did I do them the honor of linking to them? The number and variety of logical fallacies is mind boggling.

Hat tip to Rand Simberg at Transterrestial Musings

Share this

Really, what would someone

Really, what would someone expect from a San Francisco newspaper? California has some of the dumbest gun laws on the books - and will continue to even if the Fedgov lets the ban slide.
Of course, Feinstein has a concealed carry permit, has for years, but she is "different", she can be trusted because she is a public servant.

This was just too easy to

This was just too easy to mock.

California does have conceal carry, just not "shall issue". In SF county political figures get one more or less automatically, all others are denied. There are a couple of counties in CA where you can get a concealed carry without any trouble.

"This was just too easy to

"This was just too easy to mock.

California does have conceal carry, just not ?shall issue?. In SF county political figures get one more or less automatically, all others are denied. There are a couple of counties in CA where you can get a concealed carry without any trouble."

Some Animals are more equal than others....

The big problem with the NRA

The big problem with the NRA is that it acts as if any restriction on any gun anywhere must inevitably lead to the total confiscation of every privately owned guns in the U.S.

Strange, isn't that the NARAL position on restrictions on abortion... where the "partial birth abortion" ban or parental notification/consent laws are vigorously opposed for identical reasons?

I'm certain the SFExaminer will understand that position while referring to the NRA position as "paranoid"... and then advocating what they declare the NRA to be "paranoid" about.