Mass. Democrat Says Gov’t Should Control Media

That darned old media is just out of control and filled with “hate crimes,” Senator Ed Markey (D, Mass.) says. So, he thinks the best solution is that government should control everything we see and hear. What could go wrong with that, Mr. Orwell?

Markey has proposed a tax dollar-wasting “study” to find ways to force broadcast media from showing “hate crimes” to we stupid, uneducated Americans. Markey is here to save us from ourselves, you see.

As to that whole First Amendment, freedom of speech thing? Markey doesn’t see any reason why that should be a problem. Why? Well, he doesn’t really say, but just take his word for it, won’t you? He should change his name from Markey to Malarkey.

Of course, not everyone is hailing Malarkey’s idea as such a great idea. Gene Policinski, who works at the First Amendment Center, says that this is something we’d better notice. “Anytime government in any form or level looks to study our speech–even something that we might all consider detestable speech–we need to pay attention.”

The truth is, this is yet one more authoritarian Democrat move to control our lives from the second we awake to the second we lay our heads down to sleep and every other hours in between. Nothing about Malarkey’s ideas could be less American.

The truth is, this is yet one more authoritarian Democrat move to control our lives from the second we awake to the second we lay our heads down to sleep and every other hours in between.

And let’s not even get into the sham that is a “hate crime.” Hate crimes do not exist. There is either crime or no crime.

And what about the money for this so-called “study”? That’s no problem, either, despite that the US is broke.

Malarkey, who entered Congress as a Mass. Representative back in the 70s, has voted to raise his own government salary six times, so apparently money is no object.

But that darned ol’ Constitution thing could pose a problem for him… if only he cared anything about it.

Open thread - Oklahoma's "botched" execution of Clayton Lockett
The Reverend Al Sharpton Almost Chokes On His Own BS
  • Walter_Cronanty

    “Markey in a statement yesterday said the bill makes ‘crystal clear that any recommendations must be consistent with the First Amendment’s free speech protections.’”

    Unless the recommendations are to disband the government agency making the study and then discard the study, they’re not consistent with the First Amendment.

  • Michael Lang

    Markey is an imbecile. He proposes something that is never going to pass the Senate let alone the House and just ends up looking like a fascist.

  • jim_m

    It’s already easier to get real news about what is going on both in the US and outside by going to the foreign press. What this is ultimately aimed at is a government approved media.

    Pair this with the media shield act and what you get is a cadre of government approved journalists who must rely upon maintaining that government license in order to keep their jobs for it will be necessary for any journalist to obtain that license in order to ply their trade. People like Warner need not apply.

    Once the government has the ability to license journalists, who will be the only people for which the 1st amendment will apply, they will be able to control all MSM content completely. People like FOX news will be prosecuted out of existence.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      While I’m no fan of the shield act, as it proposes to define what a “journalist” is, the upcoming decision in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Sarah Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, Case No. 13-5946, is going to be extremely important for sites such as Wizbang. As reported:

      Thursday’s arguments centered on the federal Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996 to give websites immunity from liability for content posted by users. Judges and courts across the country have upheld the law in hundreds of cases, including other lawsuits involving Richie’s website.

      But [Federal District Court Judge] Bertelsman has ruled four times against Richie’s arguments involving the Communications Decency Act, finding that the very name of Richie’s website, the way he manages it and the personal comments that he adds to many posts all encourage offensive content.

      Foxphobes, see,

  • GarandFan

    Mass. Democrat Says Democrats Should Control Media


    • Jwb10001

      Politicians all seem to suffer from the same disorder, when in power they think they will always be in power and act accordingly (stupid ideas like this one.) Once out of power this moron would no doubt scream to high heaven that the republicans are using this law to stifle freedom of speech. Wasn’t that long ago that Tim Robbins stood in front of a room full of reporters with microphones in his face warning about the ill wind that was blowing, I guess he was just ahead of his time.

      • As the saying goes – ‘free speech for me, but not for thee’. But now we’re seeing what our self-appointed ‘betters’ think about the vast unwashed being able to say what we want – and they’re heavily against it.

        What a surprise, eh?

        “We will preserve free speech by making sure any ‘hateful’ speech is squashed. And WE get to decide what’s hateful – YOU don’t.”

        I get the feeling the fools inside the Beltway aren’t feeling particularly secure in their ‘control’ over us. I’d expect more things like this as their insecurity grows…

        • Jwb10001

          Seems to me they would be better served letting the rabble blow off steam by mouthing off.

  • Commander_Chico

    Waste of money.

  • 914

    These moronic Dembamabots are a danger to the Republic..

  • 914

    Government has contributed nothing positive for We the People in the last 5 decades.. It needs to be dismantled and redone with 4 year term limits and many volunteer factions instead of BIG unionized bureaucracy..

  • Brucehenry

    If either you or the geniuses at Breitbart provided a link to Markey’s actual proposal and not just quotes from folks bashing it, I missed it.

    • jim_m

      The story in Breitbart comes from the Boston Herald.

      Even Dershowitz says the bill is bad

      Harvard Law professor Alan M. Dershowitz said, “He’s not going to be able to come up with legislation that sufficiently protects the First Amendment. We always have to be able to respond to the racists and bigots, but not at the expense of the First Amendment.”

      The point is that the whole idea is a waste of time. The answer to hate speech is more speech not less. But then the left is always interested in suppression of speech and ideas.

      If you want to know whether or not this is a serious idea just look to the later paragraph in the Herald story:

      the bill, which is similar to a Markey-backed 1993 study that found hate crimes linked to media “scattered and largely anecdotal” and recommended no government bans.

      So this idiot is proposing to do something that his own study has already shown will be utterly ineffective in ts object. All this is is an exercise in limiting speech.

      • Brucehenry

        If a study was done in 1893 about automobile accidents it would probably have found that there wasn’t much of a problem. But a similar study done in 1914 might have shown a much different result.

        Similarly a study about hate speech done before the advent of the Internet and a study done today may yield different outcomes.

        I’m not expressing agreement with Markey here that this needs to be done, nor disagreement with you that this is a waste of time. Just pointing out that others can have different viewpoints without them being “fascists” or attempting to oppress anyone.

        Also, again, what specifically is being objected to in Markey’s proposal? We don’t know, because neither Warner, nor Breitbart, nor the Boston Herald links to the proposal itself.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          What’s being objected to is the camel’s nose under the tent. What possible good could come from this? Are you more worried about “hate speech” on the internet or the government’s attempt to control speech on the internet?

          I’ll do you a favor. Here’s where you can find a link to the bill [note that Markey in his link describes it as a bill to “examine and prevent … hate speech”]:
          Now, you do me a favor – find out what Markey means when he uses the term “hate speech” and what he means by “prevent.”

          If this bill doesn’t make the hair on the back of your neck stick up, you’re way too comfortable with fascism.

          • jim_m

            Oh, prevent means silencing people and removing their 1st amendment rights because someone (probably a lefty) declares themselves to be offended by the speech of someone else.

            This is something that Bruce would support by allowing it to happen but is unwilling to vocally advocate for it because he thinks that to do that would be unseemly. However, if enacted he will certainly support it and he would find all sorts of excuses why it is proper and necessary.

          • Brucehenry

            Said Jim’s pet straw man, who he has named “Bruce.”

          • jim_m

            I just point out your behavior. While you disagree, you are remarkably consistent in that behavior.

          • Brucehenry

            Thank you Walter. I suppose it would have been easy enough for me to find it myself. My point was Warner was ringing an alarm bell without telling us what specifically to be alarmed about.

            That said, reading the text of the bill, it does seem overly broad, too vague, and subject to lead to abuse, even if one subscribes to the theory that ‘hate crimes” do indeed exist (as many do not and many do). Now I understand the “camel’s nose under the tent” argument you are using. Yes it makes me uncomfortable too.

          • So all that needs to be done is tighten it up, specify topics of “hate”, and improve the legal protections to avoid abuse. Nothing hard at all, just throw enough lawyers at it and it’ll become incomprehensible to the layman, at which point it’ll be a perfect tool for our ‘betters’ to silence the rabble with…

          • Brucehenry

            One doesn’t have to agree with Markey to be concerned about “the rabble” being roused by irresponsible Talk Radio hatemongers crying wolf. Here’s what it’s led to so far:



            We can’t have radical militias setting up checkpoints to harass and intimidate the citizenry and the media or we become Baghdad or Mogadishu. These nutty thugs were incited by Hate Radio to take these actions. Now I don’t know what the answer is — it’s not Markey’s and maybe there ain’t one. But we just plain can’t have this shit.

            It might not even matter that this Cliven guy’s issues are bogus and that he is operating a con and a welfare cheat to the adulation of Liberty-mouthing nutjobs. A government that allows militias to set up checkpoints on the public roads and demand ID from passersby is no government at all.

            PS wonder what the Right blogosphere would have to say if the New Black Panthers set up armed checkpoints going in and out of Newark neighborhoods, or surrounded and scared shitless a FOX reporter.

          • jim_m

            That’s right. Illegal roadblocks and harassment of citizens is the job of the obama administration.

            What pisses Bruce off is that other people are horning in on the turf of his fascist friends. But Bruce will only ever condemn the actions of people he disagrees with. He will never complain about the infringement of people’s rights by the obama admin.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s right Jim every conversation is a fencing match. I guess you “win” and don’t need to talk about things you find it difficult to defend.

          • jim_m

            I’m not defending anyone stopping people who are not breaking the law. Forgive me if I am a little less worried about some very fringe groups doing something that they have no business doing than I am about the feds doing illegal searches and forcing compliance under the color of the law.

            While you get bent about a handful of fringe nutballs and you call for the suppression of everyone’s rights is response, you see no problem whatsoever with the obama admin using law enforcement to conduct illegal searches and to illegally detain people without cause or warrant.

            Once again you seek to excuse the abuse of power and creeping fascism in the name of advancing your own agenda.

            [edit] These militias were setting up checkpoints to restrict movement of BLM people who were vandalizing Clivin’s property and killing his cattle (Not to mention destroying the turtle burrows that they were supposedly trying to drive Clivin out in order to protect). When the BLM went away so dd the check points. When the federal government sets up illegal checkpoints to harass, detain and conduct illegal searches on innocent civilians (forcing their compliance by threat) there is no end in sight to what abuse the government is willing to commit. At least the militias gave a reason for their actions.

          • Brucehenry

            Except that the law itself is what stopped the government from continuing the traffic stops you object to (and rightfully so), while the point of this thread is whether or not hatemongers use the Internet to whip up the rabble; and whether or not the government can or should do anything about it. Once again you prove you can’t fucking read, and demonstrate an inability to argue in a civil manner, instead trying to treat a conversation as a duel.

            As you do when you characterize my position as a “call for the suppression of everyone’s rights.” No where on this or any other thread have I taken such a position, so you either can’t fucking read (as is my theory) or you’re totally dishonest ( a very real possibility, and one that doesn’t exclude my theory).

            We are still a nation of laws, and in the case you link to, the due process of law is what stopped the government from continuing to abuse its power. In contrast, you cheer on, or at least defend the inciters of, nutjobs boldly declaring that they and they alone determine what, if any, laws they will obey. You seem to have no problem, as long as these lunatics mumble something about “liberty”, with them acting exactly as the militias in Mogadishu or Homs do.

            You and your ideological kin will no doubt be satisfied only when the US government wields as little power as the Iraqi or Somali governments do.

          • jim_m

            Wrong. The law did not stop the government, if that were the case they never would have begun them. What stopped the government was exposure. Once the public knew what was going on the government stopped for fear of the public outrage.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I stand corrected. However the program has been discontinued because, as has been pointed out, the stops are unconstitutional and won’t stand up in court if contested.

            Now that the government knows the stops undoubtedly WILL be contested it won’t attempt this particular abuse again.

            But as long as radio gasbags continue to rile up militia nutjobs they will continue to usurp the functions of government, a slippery slope that could conceivably someday land the US in the same fix as Somalia or at best Ukraine.

          • jim_m

            If there were a DOJ that was intent on enforcing the law rather than covering for a corrupt admin they wouldn’t have happened in the first place.

          • Brucehenry

            Didn’t know the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was part of DOJ.

          • jim_m

            In an admin that is even just moderately corrupt (as opposed to one that is arguably a criminal conspiracy) proper oversight of operations would have resulted in someone questioning the legality of such a proposal. Proper internal oversight would have prevented this. However, in the case of the obama admin, the presumption is that regardless of whatever illegality or trampling of the civil rights of the public, the DOJ will never investigate, much less prosecute, and will act to shield any participants from prosecution or Congressional inquiry.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL ok Jim we’re living in the Harding Administration whatever.

          • jim_m

            Not at all. By comparison the Harding admin was benign.

          • Brucehenry

            Touche. You “win.” Congratulations.

          • Benign neglect is better than active abuse.

          • I’ve seen enough gawker articles over the years to know that they’ll always go off with the most sensationaltake on any subject that they cover. And if you really want sensationalism, take a look over at their Jezebel line of Media.

            It’s interesting…

            I wouldn’t take them seriously as a source of News….

          • Brucehenry

            I get it, but they link to other sources, including a congressman’s office.

          • Hmm. D or R on the congressman?

            as Chico would say, the oligarchy will protect itself at all costs.

            they cannot be seen as wrong, because if they are wrong on one thing then what else might they be wrong on?

          • Brucehenry

            As a Baghdadi might ask, “Shia or Sunni?”

            It’s a Dem congressman. Do you think he’s lying when he says his constituents, some of them anyway, have expressed concern? Do you think it’s OK to have armed militiamen stopping cars and asking motorists what their business in the area is? Do you not get my analogy or do you think it’s silly to worry about such a thing?


          • jim_m

            I think he’s lying that he gets any input from his constituents other than his own staff. I think that what these militias did, if the reports are true, was wrong and possible criminal.

          • “IF the reports are true”…

            What? You have a suspicion that the media would report untruthfully on some event? That they would be anything but open, honest, and truthful no matter which side it might disadvantage politically?

            Hah. It is to laugh, comrade. Pravda always tells truth, even if truth is not real.

          • jim_m

            “Fake but accurate”

          • I suppose it would depend on which militia you’re talking about. The police can certainly stop people without any particular reason.

            The Bundy situation is a very odd one. & I hate to say it, but rather unique. At the core, government gets its authority from the consent of the governed, but that consent of the governed cannot always be taken for granted, and can be misused or misinterpeted. I hate to say it, but I think we’re approaching a point in time where that consent is no longer freely given by the whole… Or can no longer assumed to be freely given.

            Consider the situation of blacks in the South in the 1960s. Their consent certainly wasn’t freely given for the rules put upon them, but the Democrats of the time would certainly argue the rules were necessary because people wanted them.

            The question at that point becomes which people wanted them. And which people were forced to give consent, and what happens when that consent is withdrawn.

            Back in the ’60s, the people withdrew their consent, and Segregation collapsed. But it took some unpleasant events to trigger it, and we may be seeing the beginning of another Civil Rights movement with the unpleasant events centering on Bundy.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes Cliven Bundy is the new Rosa Parks. Ridiculous.

            The Civil Rights marchers, Freedom Riders, etc, led by the likes of MLK, never took up arms to force government agents to back down. Never threatened to do so. Instead they practiced non-violent civil disobedience in the service of a just cause. They willingly got arrested and accepted the consequences of their disobedience, setting a moral example that forced the country to reexamine its assumptions and right some of the wrongs inherited from the slavery and Jim Crow eras.

            In the Bundy case we have a grifting tax cheat and welfare lout proclaiming that he doesn’t “recognize the federal government as even existing.” And Talk Radio rabblerousers inciting yahoos from around the country to come and prance around waving lethal weapons in the defense of “liberty” — the liberty to use public land for profit at no charge, apparently.

            If Bundy’s supporters get arrested, or if violence occurs because of their actions, they’ll have themselves to blame. There is civil disobedience, and then there is sedition. There is a reason MLK is today almost universally revered, and Malcolm X is not. As I have said, NO government can allow radical militias to set up checkpoints and roadblocks to demand ID from passersby and expect to maintain order. If a precedent like that is allowed where will it stop?

            The very same conservatives who claim to be so concerned about the US standing in the world are just fine, it seems, with crazy bandits proclaiming what laws they will obey and which they will not, and brandishing weapons to back up their boasts. Just fine with militia roadblocks as one might find in Anbar province or Sierra Leone. No problem with armed men publicly swearing that tax collectors will be met with armed resistance. And just peachy with small-market radio and internet-radio paranoiacs and cynical provocateurs whipping up these maniacs into an anti-government frenzy.

            Why do you guys hate America, Lawson?

          • The point of my example being the fact that someone decided to not play along, and play by the rules that stacked the deck in favor of the powers that be. Or perhaps I should have used the Revolutionary War as an example? The legal deck was certainly stacked for England, I think you’d agree.

            (But then again, you probably wouldn’t just to be contrary. 😉 )

            Whether the person is virtuous or reprehensible doesn’t make any difference to the overall point of the process. Neither does whether or not you like the process or the people. (It seems kind of clear that you don’t. That’s kind of how the folks in England felt, I’m sure. Or the Dems in the South. THEY didn’t like it one little bit, but their hate didn’t stop the change.)

            This is just my analysis. I could be right, or I could be wrong. Time will tell.

          • Brucehenry

            You slay me. You employ a ludicrous comparison — Bundy’s loonybin militia supporters to the Civil Rights movement — and the other guy is disagreeing “just to be contrary.” Allllrighty then.

            The Civil Rights volunteers DID play by the rules, genius. They willingly went to jail and otherwise suffered the consequences of their disobedience in order to set a peaceful moral example that changed the country and the world in a positive way. Bundy’s morons, on the other hand, are armed and are declaring that they won’t obey the law– and that any government agent that attempts to enforce the law will be met with violence. They have set up roadblocks to enforce their own self-assumed police powers — if allowed, anarchy could ensue, with any group of butthurt nuts arming themselves and imposing their will by armed might against civilians and government agents alike — just like the Taliban or Ansar al-Sharia.

            That’s the difference between civil disobedience and sedition, in case you didn’t know.

            This is why we remember Dr King as a hero and H Rap Brown as a dangerous radical kook. Why the NAACP continues as a respected organization and the Symbionese Liberation Army was put down with violence.

            Your American Revolution analogy is just as laughable. A bunch of nuts play-acting like patriots, albeit possibly dangerous, are NOT modern day Minutemen, and the comparison is insulting. It would help if these drama queens got a real issue to be upset about instead of Bundy’s welfare grift — there are plenty they could act upon — but they choose to follow even worse grifters than Bundy — radio talk show hosts making money off their gullibility and well-meaning stupidity.

            Which was the point of this thread. Do I think Markey’s proposal is the answer? No, I don’t, and there may not even BE an answer. But let’s don’t get carried away comparing dangerous loonies to Freedom Riders or Minutemen. They just ain’t.

            PS Again I’d love to hear you defend the Black Panthers, or compare them to the men of Bunker Hill, if they set up roadblocks on New Jersey highways and back roads.

          • “That’s right Jim every conversation is a fencing match.”

            The Civil Rights marchers forced the other side to act visibly on rules and customs that until that point were more ‘hidden’, and got the world to watch those good Democrats enforcing Segregation with fire hoses and police dogs. They were certainly breaking the laws where they were living – and did so in an admirable fashion.

            They showed the oppression inherent in a system of laws and customs that were long outmoded. It doesn’t matter whether they were peaceful or not – what they did was say they were no longer going to obey the law – and they were right to do so. Their passive resistance was admirable, but in a lot of other cities there wasn’t the same peaceful push-back.

            The rebels during the Revolutionary War were certainly breaking the law. THEY certainly weren’t a peaceful, moral example. They were armed, they were declaring they wouldn’t obey the law, and government agents that attempted to enforce the law were met with violence. Raising an army was certainly treasonous.

            Were they right or wrong to do so?

            Both groups caused massive change, which is what I’ve been saying. And whether you care for what’s going on in Nevada or not – and it’s very clear you don’t – what you’re seeing is a group of people who are pushing back against laws that they feel are overreaching.

            Time will tell what the result is.

          • Brucehenry

            There are Tea Party members who are indeed, concerned about government overreach, so I get your comparison — of the mainstream of the Tea Party, as it were, to Freedom Riders or Minutemen.

            But in NV, what we have is RUBES, wannabes, suckered by Internet rabblerousers and Hate Radio gasbags into taking actions that are dangerous to the Republic, and don’t even stop at plain sedition.

            But see, the thread was about Internet rabblerousers and Hate Radio provocateurs, and whether or not the the government can — or even SHOULD — do anything about it. (I personally don’t think it should, because I don’t think it constitutionally can.)

            So I think to some extent we we’ve been talking past each other, and I apologize for my part in that. I took a little umbrage at the wackoes surrounding Bundy being compared to my heroes the Freedom Riders, some of the bravest and best Americans who ever lived. Sue me.

          • Why? I agree with your assessment of them. (And it’s not like we don’t have some history – and I apologize for that.)

            What they (the Freedom Riders) did was right, proper and amazing – and (being retired AF) my respect for their predecessors in the Tuskegee Airmen knows no bounds. (Actually had one of them visit our squadron once – humble man, and I got to shake his hand.) What THEY had to go against… holy fuck, our country really didn’t deserve such heroes.

            But anyway.

            Re the original topic – “I personally don’t think it should, because I don’t think it constitutionally can.”

            Okay, we agree on that.

            But here’s the kicker – if there was some constitutional way it could be done, would you think it an appropriate thing to do?

            Personally, I think it’s not even remotely appropriate – because we have a tradition of being able to speak freely, even if it’s not what the mainstream, or the ‘elite’ who seem to want to decide such things, would want to hear. What Markey seems to want to be doing is to define what COULD be said, under fear of government prosecution. And I can see far too many examples in history of how well THAT turned out. Silencing any possible opposing voice rarely has turned out to the benefit of the societies that have tried it.

            Anyway, that’s my take on it. What do you think?

          • Brucehenry

            Markey is a congressman. Been there a looooong time. Congress is his hammer. Every problem is a nail to Markey. Congress cannot regulate speech, so if Markey pushes forward on his proposal, it won’t pass, and, seeing the text, rightly so.

            I can’t think of a way, constitutionally, the government can do a goddamn thing about Internet rabblerousers and Talk Radio provocateurs, so, as a fan of the Constitution, I don’t think it should try.

            Now, the PUBLIC might be able to do something — boycott advertisers or content providers or something like that. But the government is constrained and appropriately so.

          • Jwb10001

            Do you think it’s ok to have billy club wielding black panthers at a polling place? Eric Holder thinks it’s ok this might just be the same sort of thing. Maybe the truth is it was a neighborhood watch group reacting to local issues that have plagued their neighborhood. You know sometimes the media leaves out important details like that.

          • Brucehenry

            Apparently Holder thinks these militia groups are peachy keen too ’cause he’s doing squat about it.

            But since you mentioned it, didn’t conservatives howl and squeal about those two black dudes with billy clubs! White guys armed with semiautomatic weapons and wearing body armor, stopping cars and asking people what business they had in these here parts? Crickets.

        • jim_m

          No Bruce. There is no study that needs to be done on how to prevent any kind of speech. It does not surprise me to see you defending, once again, the over reach of government and the attempts to oppress people based on their views. You can deny that you apologize for tyranny but you do it every day.

          • Brucehenry

            And you can deny my assertion that you can’t fucking read but you prove it every day.

  • Paul Hooson

    Absolutely not! Government control of a free press is a complete danger as are other unconstitutional government restrictions on free expression including obscenity laws.

  • stan25

    The real target is conservative media. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are at the top of the list. The other conservative talk radio and bloggers are next. It does not take a Rhodes Scholarship to see what Malarky is proposing.

    • Paul Hooson

      That’s a real danger, that whatever government in power could target critics of that government. It’s so important the press remains free of government control that could curtail public opinion related to public policy.

      • Jwb10001

        First they came for the strip club owners, I wasn’t a strip club owner so I did nothing……..

        • jim_m

          Channeling Bruce now are we?

          • Jwb10001

            Perhaps you miss understand, simply pointing out that there seems to be some targeting going on and all of a sudden it looks like our Obama supporting friend, Paul is a potential target.

        • Commander_Chico


  • LiberalNightmare

    Hey, we just want to have an honest, reasonable conversation about your first amendment rights. Nobody wants to take your freedom of speech away, you can still use it for hunting.

    • Brucehenry

      That’s good snark. LOL.

  • Commander_Chico

    Of course, compared to the proposed new FCC internet rules, this is not a serious threat. The draft rules would channel all bandwidth into Big Media and choke off small sites like this. It’s a real present threat, not a study proposed by a junior senator.

    Big Telecom, Big Media, Big Finance and Big Government are backing it.

    I suspect Warner has not received orders from his masters on what to write about that or has been ordered to remain silent.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      I up-dinged you for everything but the last sentence. Unless Warner wants to see himself, and Wizbang, regulated out of business, I doubt that he would be in favor of new FCC internet rules.
      Of course, I’m sure he’s being handsomely paid by his masters to write what they want him to write [that’s sarcasm, Warner].

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah, but the conservative blogs have been silent on this.

        Makes me wonder if moneyed interests call the tune.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          I know they’ve been talking about new regs – have they proposed anything for certain that I can read? Thanks.

        • Jwb10001

          That;s not true go to instapundit or Red State.

    • warnertoddhuston

      I’ll tell you why I have generally not written about the FCC and Net Neutrality… I don’t have a grasp on the arguments. I have tried several times to “get” the discussion, but I have yet to see enough of what it all is to understand it enough to have an informed opinion. So, I’ve laid off it.

  • Michael Lang

    Wittle fascist Brucie has a whole line of designer jackboots lined up in his closet. A pair for every occasion.

    • Brucehenry

      Drive by ad hominems suit you, troll. Continue lurking.

  • They control the media in Communist/Socialist countries. I forgot most Democrats belong to one of those organizations.

  • Par4Course

    When I don’t like something in business or media, I remind myself that, as bad as it may be, we have the power not to buy, not to listen, not to read, etc. But when control of anything is turned over to government, we have no real ability to resist, as the government has a near monopoly on the ability and right to use force to demand obedience to its every whim.

    While I detest people who target others based on factors such as race, there should be no such thing a “hate crimes.” (What a stupid phrase – as if we had to distinguish “hate crimes” from “love crimes.”) Criminals should be punished for the nature and result of their illegal acts, not for the identity of their victims or even their motives. Punish the deed not the thought behind it.

    • Brucehenry

      Yes I think I agree. Perhaps “hate crime” should be just a journalistic descriptor, not a legal concept. Although there may be something to be said for it being an aggravating factor, similar to the difference between premeditated first degree murder and “crime of passion” second degree murder.

      • jim_m

        “Hate crime” is just a way to get the people to accept the idea of a thought crime.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Markey’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed and those Vietnam and Watergate-era Democrats arguably are the worst collection of waste cases ever in politics. If you’re at all “surprised” by this then you’ve been under a rock for the past few decades.

  • westcoastwiser

    When Markey leaves the state, the average IQ of those in-state goes up by 10 points.