Free speech, free press, and human rights

Right Blogistan is extremely upset that ABC has basically turned itself into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Obama Message Machine.

Dan Riehl imagines a world in which ABC would treat a Republican President the same way:

Hey, I know. Let's give the Bush White House a few hours on ABC to make a complete presentation from policy advisers and military personnel to go through the run up, execution and corrections regarding the Iraq War. And explain why bringing modernity to the Middle-east actually is a part of the war against terrorism. The media always likes to get behind a war effort, anyway. Oops, sorry, too late for that. Bet they wish they had thought of it then.

Not likely. Disney already owns Fantasyland.

At NRO, Dana Perino has praise for ABC News, but not for this decision:

Perhaps ABC will help provide more clarity and “select” people who will ask tough questions; however, no matter how tough the questions are, President Obama will have home-field advantage. And it’s hard not to look like you’re in the tank when you’re anchoring from the Blue Room.

I understand what all the fuss is about. We're used to the mainstream media pretending to be objective. They never have been, of course. Nor should they be. The First Amendment was written long before the Columbia School of Journalism came around to promote the Myth of the Monastic Reporter. Under this fantasy, reporters and editors exist above the political fray, dispensing dispassionate truth from their lofty and ethical perch. While the romantic view makes reporters seem so much better than common folk, or at least the politicians they cover, it isn't true. Reporters are just as fair and as biased, just as hard-working and as lazy, just as ethical and as sleazy, as the rest of us. We can't expect them to ignore who they are and what they believe as they report the news.

Nor should we. The First Amendment isn't premised on an artificially objective press corps providing fair and balanced coverage. It relies on a cacophony of voices fighting for time and attention with the strength of their ideas. Sure, ABC News lacks any credibility when it comes to covering the Obama Health Care Takeover, but they didn't lose it yesterday. They lost it last summer, and Hillary Clinton supporters might say sooner than that.

Which is fine, as long as ABC isn't given monopoly protection along with its Mainstream Media cohorts. The Obama Administration has shown a remarkable ability to close itself off from criticism, and only allow access to Washington Press Corps Softball Team. And if his ideas are so weak that they can't withstand criticism, they should be rejected.

But ABC News confirming what we already knew about their agenda doesn't weaken the press in America. We could be living under an oppressive regime that stifles all criticism, and uses the power of the state to prosecute people who express unpopular ideas. We could live in Canada:

Who will mourn for the beleaguered Canadian censors? Jennifer Lynch, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is oddly insecure in the face of criticism. In Canada's popular Globe & Mail newspaper, Lynch defends her Commission's mandate to punish Internet speech that could "expose an individual or a group of individuals to hatred or contempt" and responds to critics.

From Lynch's article, we learn that "Section 13 prohibits the repeated electronic transmission of messages that are likely to expose an individual or a group of individuals to hatred or contempt." Please allow me to express my contempt for Jennifer Lynch and her repeated attacks on free expression in the land of my ancestors. I hope to escape prosecution the next time I visit Montreal or Toronto.

We've mentioned Canada's quest to stamp out free speech before. But at least we'll never see anything like that in New Hampshire.

The House has already approved a bill to weaken due process protections if you're ever brought before the Commission on Human Rights. Under current law, either party could remove a dispute from this quasi-judicial body to Superior Court. If this legislation passes, defendants wouldn't get their day in court until after the Human Rights Commission is through with them. This would change the Commission from providing voluntary mediation and arbitration into a one-sided prosecutorial weapon, under which anyone accused of discrimination would have to clear his or her name twice.

Fortunately, the New Hampshire Commission on Human Rights has limited itself to cases of illegal discrimination in employment and housing, and has not become a Star Chamber for politically motivated prosecutions. If it did, this is a much more significant threat to free expression than ABC News turning the keys to the Newsroom over to the Obama White House.

For a great example of free speech in action, just look at the Letterman-Palin Kerfuffle.