Having spent a fair deal of time walking the halls of various institutions of higher education, from the US to the UK, I can, with a fair deal of experience, hold forth on what a liberal utopia might look like. One of its key features, addressed by this blog previously, are speech codes.
These codes seek to lay out, with a ridiculous degree of specificity, which words and types of words are and are not acceptable in “progressive” discourse. They typically emanate from sociology and anthropology departments, though english and psych departments like to contribute too.
These types of 1st Amendment limiting codes, along with chilling, peer-pressure oriented, group-think (read in this election contest: Obama hipsters), will be the word of the day in an Obama presidency. Disagree with progressive liberals over the prevailing, conventional wisdom about, well, anything, and you can just Shut[…]Up.
Michael Barone’s latest article highlights examples of this at work already in the Obama campaign and how it would carry over to his presidency. Think I’m a fearmonger? Read about the already existent examples and judge for yourselves. If this is what they’re willing to do during an election, imagine how it will be once they’re ensconced in the Presidency.
“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors,” Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. “I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people’s faces. They seem determined to shut people up.
That’s what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg’s WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama’s relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago — papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.
Obama fans jammed WGN’s phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg’s example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Obama that were “false.” I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama’s ties to Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the “fairness doctrine” on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can’t abide having citizens hear contrary views.
If you really believe in freedom of speech and independent thought, you won’t vote for Barack Obama.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at email@example.com.