From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?
This reinventing and government licensure, even while being postulated, goes against the concepts of John Milton and John Stuart Mill, folks who seem to have been much smarter than most of the folks making decisions about our current future. It threatens the safety of our republic with the creation of a government approved politically and financially beholden press that will risk ruin if it threatens to disrupt the status quo, the very antithesis of a free press. "If we silence an opinion, we may silence truth." Government endorsed free press is an oxymoran and does little or nothing to guard our liberty. It is maddeningly frustrating that the funds of good citizens are threatened to be usurped to do this unconsitutional activity that threatens their own future. It is even conceivable that this is motivated as an attempt to control the public awareness of the approaching financial debacle with our unfunded debt and to delay accountability by the folks in charge, in hopes that some magic solution will be uncovered if the last moment can be postponed long enough. Politically correct speech does not need to be protected. It is distrubing or the "too much information (that) can be confusing" that is protected by our Constitution. What is characterized as hate speech depends on the political leanings of the determiner, and who will watch the watchers? What needs to be protected is the speech that upsets the status quo, or that details the inevitable corruption of centralized power that Jefferson warned us about. Do do less is un-American and sows the seeds for tyrrany and despotism.