If you look deeply enough, you can find common ground with the devil.

Earlier this week, members of the Christian Coalition of America (CCA) and The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) testified before Congress in favor of net neutrality. (Source)

Net neutrality is the idea that the Internet should be free and open. Broadband providers should not speed up or slow down a connection to a web site based on its content or its owner’s ability to pay for faster or priority access. No site is given priority over another. Net neutrality results in a “democratic” web, where surfers have equal access to everything, including junk. From Save the Internet:

The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

The NARAL has already been subjected to censorship, and the CCA got involved as a pre-emptive move. If it can happen to the NARAL, it definitely can happen to the CCA.

I may loudly proclaim I have nothing in common with people who think women have the right to have their babies murdered in the womb, but I do. Censoring one group will only lead to censoring the other.

Three years ago, liberal and conservative bloggers stood together against the Federal Election Commission, which sought to regulate bloggers under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Because I believe the free-flow of information is crucial in a society that wants to remain free, I will defend someone’s right to express his opinions, even if those opinions turn my stomach.

Sunday, July 1: I like it:

————————————————————————————————-

Envy is ugly. All humans are capable of it, and some display it more than others. It’s always, always unattractive. When I feel a wave of it coming on, I channel the energy toward productive pursuits, drawing on my own strengths to create something instead of wallowing in envy over what others have created or trying to destroy or undermine it.

Envy is exactly why liberals are trying to revive a dead doctrine. Because no one wants to listen to a bunch of whiny white liberals on the radio all day, liberal talk radio is a dud. Conservative talk radio is king, and liberals can’t stand it. Instead of channeling the “envy energy” into creating profitable, market-driven programs (products) of their own, they want to shut down market-driven conservative talk by government fiat. Unimaginatively typical.

I had no idea liberal politicians were this serious about trying to destroy conservative talk radio. Last week, Republicans and a few Democrats in the House of Representatives defeated an attempt to allow liberals to piggyback off the success of conservative radio, the Hill reports.

This wasn’t the first time liberal politicians have attempted to suppress speech they don’t like, and it won’t be the last. They want free speech rights for their views, but they’ll use the government to shut down everyone else’s. It’s frustratingly predictable.

The Hill sums up why conservatives oppose the so-called Fairness Doctrine as applied to talk radio:

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would slash profits and pressure radio executives to scale back on conservative programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from government regulators. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine argue that radio stations would suffer financially if forced to air liberal as well as conservative programs because liberal talk radio has not proven popular or profitable. For example, Air America, liberals’ answer to “The Rush Limbaugh Show” and Michael Medved, filed for bankruptcy in October.

Liberals’ motto: “If you can’t compete with it, destroy it.”

Conservatives’ motto: “If you can’t compete with it, find an untapped or under-served market for your product and sell it there.”

Addendum: The left-leaning, taxpayer-supported National Public Radio is 37 years old. I wonder how long it would have survived if it had to rely on advertising instead of tax dollars…

Related posts:

• Airwave Envy II
• Airwave Envy I

Liberals are such crybabies. (By the grace of God, I’m no longer a liberal. No more tears!)

They’re still whining about the domination of conservative talk radio. The Center for American Progress and Free Press, liberal “think” tanks, put out a joint 40-page report titled, Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio (PDF). They outline the “problem” and propose solutions that wouldn’t surprise even the most politically apathetic American.

The Numbers

Liberals are hopeless. On the one hand, they seem to hate concepts like “business” and “market.” On the other, they have no problem taking advantage of the jobs and capital created by businesses or the opportunities created by a particular market. In fact, they want to piggyback off the success of conservative talk radio.

The researchers found that 91 percent of weekday talk radio programming is conservative and only 9 percent is liberal (they use the word progressive; I won’t). Every weekday, people who want to listen to conservative radio can enjoy 2,570 hours (and 15 minutes!) of it. Liberals who listen to liberal radio have to settle for only 254 hours. But that’s what the market demands, right? Not necessarily so, say the libs. I’ll get to that later.

The tanks say that 76 percent of the programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative. “While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast,” cried the researchers.

Why does conservative talk dominate the airwaves? I (and many other conservatives and a few honest liberals) believe that conservative talk dominates the airwaves because of de-regulation of the airwaves in the 1980s and because there’s a bigger market for conservative talk. But the think tanks believe these explanations are inadequate. Not wrong, mind you, but inadequate.

The Problem as Liberals See it

First, the researchers inform us that the Fairness Doctrine was never repealed. “The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine.”

Besides, the libs say, the Fairness Doctrine alone isn’t enough to ensure “fair discussion.” But more government regulations and red tape might. I’ll elaborate on this when I get to “The Solution.”

Second, the researchers say the market argument is “misleading.” Although talk radio listeners tend to be middle-aged conservative men, about 43 percent of regular listeners call themselves conservative, 23 liberal, and 30 moderate.

See? Talk radio show listeners are not monolithic! The researchers practically shout this very important message. But there’s only one problem. Who claimed that talk radio show listeners were monolithic? No matter. They’re on a roll…

This is where the researchers really begin to whine. They’re upset that station owners broadcast more than one conservative radio talk show in a given market. No fair!

“[I]n Portland, OR, where progressive talk on KPOJ AM 620 competes effectively with conservative talk on KEX AM 1190, station owners also broadcast conservative talk on KXL AM 750 and KPAM AM 860. Although there is a clear demand and proven
success of progressive talk in this market, station owners still elect to stack the
airwaves with one-sided broadcasting.”

It drips with airwave envy, doesn’t it? What does the success of a liberal radio station in a given market have to do with other station owners broadcasting more than one conservative show in the same market? Are the researchers suggesting that there must be an equal number of liberal shows and conservative shows in a single market? Why, yes they are!

If that’s the case, what is stopping liberals from applying for licenses, buying stations, and broadcasting liberal talk radio? (The question is rhetorical.)

When they can’t get what they want through competing with others, what do liberals demand? Government, government, government regulations, entitlements, handouts, preferences, perks… (See If You Can’t Compete, Cheat)

The researchers also found that station licensees tend to broadcast only conservative talk; that is, about 90 percent of the stations they examined broadcast only conservative talk instead of balancing the market with liberal talk. So, what’s to stop liberal licensees from acquiring and airing more liberal talk radio shows? Absolutely nothing. The focus is not on finding a market and developing “progressive” talent; they’re always, always focused on disregarding market demands and demanding that the government limit conservative talk and prop up liberal talk.

The issue for these think tanks is this: if 35 23 percent of talk radio listeners self-identify as liberal, shouldn’t 35 23 percent of the shows feature liberal talk? After all, 43 percent of talk radio show listeners self-identify as conservatives, but 91 percent of the programming is conservative. No fair!

Could the numbers mean that some liberals and moderates are listening to these conservative talk shows, along with conservatives, and like these shows? The researchers never address this possibility.

The researchers say the imbalance is caused by “multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation resulting from pro-forma licensing policies, longer license terms (to eight years from three years previously), the elimination of clear public interest requirements such as local public affairs programming, and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management.”

What follows is a whiny tale about how de-regulation of the airwaves generated competition, which “constrained” local-, black- and women-owned stations. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed the limit on how many stations a company could own.

This de-regulation created “artificial economies of scale” for the syndicated programming that “[l]arge, non-local owners” chose to broadcast. The researchers say this business model is profitable, given “the size of corporate radio holdings.”

In plain language, the researchers believe that corporate ownership of radio stations is not serving the needs of the community where the shows are broadcast. Back in the day, they claim, the underlying principles of broadcasting were to “foster localism and a station owner’s commitment to local public service.” After all, if these people had a free license to use the public airwaves, shouldn’t the public be served?

One could argue that the public is being served by the dominance of conservative talk radio. On the other hand, I doubt Rush Limbaugh “fosters localism”; he hosts a national radio show. But in the 21st century digital age, isn’t fostering localism an increasingly outdated concept? And what, I ask again, is preventing local liberal radio stations from forming and broadcasting liberal talk?

Do you see what’s going on? In order to balance out liberal and conservative talk radio, liberals are suggesting we impede progress with more government regulations, in the name of public interest, instead of allowing the market and technology to boldly go where no man has gone before. And they call themselves progressives?

The progressives whine some more about the paucity of black- and female-owned radio stations. Boring, really.

The Solution as Liberals See it

I’ve already alluded to the solution, as liberals see it: More government interference! What else would/could a liberal come up with?

The researchers believe the government should:

Translation: Implement more rules and regs to create artificial markets for liberal talk radio. This is the best scenario for increasing liberal talk radio shows. No matter how the researchers try to couch the facts, there is less demand for liberal talk radio and greater demand for conservative talk radio. That’s as sure as death and taxes.

Translation: The tankers believe a more involved public would result in more liberal talk radio shows. Be careful what you wish for! If such a plan were implemented, it could backfire on liberals. Giving locals more say in federal licensing could result in more conservative talk radio stations.

Translation: Set up an arbitrary and subjective “public interest” requirement (which would favor liberal talk radio stations), and, despite market demands, “balance” out liberal and conservative talk radio shows, whether or not there is a market for liberal talk radio. If owners don’t comply, they’ll be required to pay a fee to…guess who? Why, the left-leaning Corporation for Public Broadcasting, of course!

That’s my assessment of the crybaby-ish report (PDF). But don’t go by me. Read it, analyze it, assess it, laugh at it, and mock it for yourselves…

Bloggers: Michelle Malkin, Think Progress…

Related posts:

• Airwave Envy I
• Failure of Liberal Talk Radio
• Air America Fails to Re-Pay Money Stolen From Poor Black Kids in New York – To File for Bankruptcy?

Tuesday, May 29: For the latest on Laura Mallory’s misguided crusade, see Laura Mallory, Foiled Again!

Update II (12/21 @ 2:47 p.m.): Would it be too much to ask readers to follow links and read the articles before commenting on this post? Probably.

Update: According to Scholastic, J. K. Rowling’s American publisher, Book 7 will be titled, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. More here.

***

Laura Mallory, Christian mother, has been on a year-long crusade to have the Harry Potter books removed from government school library shelves in Gwinnett County, Georgia.

A few months ago, the Gwinnett County School Board refused to remove the books. Last week, the Georgia Board of Education upheld Gwinnett County’s decision. Mallory says she may appeal.

By the way, she’s never read the books. Not one.

Mallory’s quest is misguided, and her efforts will be fruitless. I don’t know any Christians who want to ban books, and I hope I never meet any. In the scheme of things, what Mallory is doing doesn’t matter that much. There are more important things going on in the world for Christians to worry about, and the Harry Potter books are so far down the list, they barely register.

So what is it about the books that offend Mallory’s sensibilities as a Christian?

The Bible and the Practice of Sorcery

When Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone washed up on American shores in the late 1990s, some Christians went ballistic.

On the grounds that the Bible clearly condemns the practice of witchcraft and sorcery, these Christians spoke out against the books for “promoting” witchcraft and advised others not to allow their children to read them.

Practicing sorcery was punishable by death in ancient Israel. Among the “detestable practices” are human sacrifice, “reading” the future, casting spells, and communicating with the dead. Along with fornication, idolatry, and jealousy, the practice of witchcraft is a sin.

That much should be clear to Bible-believing Christians.

Christians by definition are not materialists (only matter exists). We believe in the spiritual realm, the “chief” spirit being the Holy Spirit, the third person in the godhead. The Bible describes the Holy Spirit (first mentioned explicitly in Acts) as our counselor and teacher, guiding us through our spiritual journey as Christ followers.

In that regard, Christians believe in the existence of unseen forces, good and evil.

Harry Potter and the Irate Christians

Joanne Rowling, a divorced mother on welfare in the 1990s, had spent years developing an idea that popped into her head while riding a train. An orphaned boy named Harry Potter discovered that he was a wizard and that his parents had been killed by an evil wizard named Lord Voldemort. The same wizard tried and failed to kill Harry in his crib. So began Rowling’s adventurous tale of “The Boy Who Lived.”

She finished the manuscript for the first book in 1995. Rejected by several publishers (I’ll bet those dopes are extremely sorry now), Bloomsbury took a chance on it. Since then, the books have won numerous awards, sold millions worldwide, and have been translated in dozens of languages, and made into high-grossing movies. Teachers and parents report that children who once hated reading are reading the Harry Potter books.

I won’t rehash the plot here, as I and many others have written enough about Harry Potter and our fascination with Rowling’s series to make your head spin. Begin by visiting the following sites:

• Harry Potter category at my FFC blog
• J.K. Rowling category
• Leaky Cauldron, premiere Harry Potter fan site with fabulous forums and essays, and a weekly podcast.
• Mugglenet and Harry Potter Lexicon have similar resources
• Christian blogger Travis Prinzi at Sword of Gryffindor (Let the theories begin!)
• Christian bloggers Pauli and Merlin at Muggle Matters (Pauli’s theorizing about Book 7′s title, too.)
• Harry Potter Prognostications (more theorizing)

As I write, Rowling is completing the seventh and final book in the septology.

American editor Alfred Knopf started a whirlwind of controversy when he decided to change the title of the first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. He thought young American readers would think the book was about philosophy and miss the reference to alchemy. In other words he figured (probably correctly) that Americans were too illiterate to understand the title and would, therefore, stay away from the books.

According to legend, a philosopher’s stone was a substance used to turn base metals into gold. The philosopher’s stone was also an ingredient in the so-called the elixir of life, which gives anyone who drinks it eternal life. In Sorcerer’s Stone, the evil wizard Lord Voldemort, having lost his powers and part of his humanity after trying to kill baby Harry Potter, tried to steal the philosopher’s stone. Harry once against thwarts his plans, and the Dark Lord’s return is delayed for a time.

[Note: While reading the first book, I immediately picked up on the classic "fear of physical death" theme and the desire to live forever, which is what Voldemort wants to do. He is so afraid of death that he split his soul seven times to avoid it. Fascinating themes and implications. Throughout human history, there's always been a fear of dying, or more precisely, of the unknown. Rowling's story, like all good literature, resonates because it echoes common refrains of the human condition.]

The word Sorcerer’s on the cover of the American version was just the beginning of some Christians’ problems with the book. They say the books promote witchcraft, but those who’ve read the books understand the distinction between promoting witchcraft and using it as a backdrop in the story. Others, like myself, make distinctions between the incantational magic of Harry Potter and the invocation magic condemned in the Bible. Also consider that Harry Potter is fiction, and the Bible doesn’t condemn reading about sorcery.

Rather than rehash the arguments here, I’ll point you to a two-part column I wrote titled, “Harry Potter and the Charmed Christians,” Part I and Part II. Warning: Here be spoilers!

The Bible condemns the practice of sorcery, but I don’t believe Christians are forbidden to read about it as fiction or non-fiction. I also believe this is a discussion for Christians and shouldn’t be argued among secularists, who have no qualms with witchcraft or any other occult practices. If Christians believe that a few books on a government school library shelf have the power to corrupt their kids, Harry Potter is the least of their problems.

Instead of wasting time, energy, and money trying to ban books, Christian parents should take their children out of government schools. Enter Laura Mallory.

Resources:

• The Harry Potter Controversy (with Christian commentary pro and con)
• Harry Potter and Christians
• Is Harry Potter Evil?
• Connie Neal, Christian Harry Potter fan
• John Granger had a robust web site with numerous Harry Potter-related articles, but he’s retooling it. I can’t wait until it’s returned in all its glory. Granger is considered an expert on Christians and Harry Potter. See “The Alchemist’s Tale” and and Granger’s books, Looking for God in Harry Potter and Who Killed Albus Dumbledore?: What Really Happened in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince?.

Laura Mallory and the Misguided Crusade

Every now and then I read stories about Christians who wanted Harry Potter books banned from government schools. Once an anti-Harry Potter Christian myself, I didn’t support the idea of banning, but I understood where these Christians were coming from.

I was a die-hard fan of Harry Potter by the time Laura Mallory began her one-woman crusade against the books, so I took a special interest in this “Christians against Harry Potter” drama. Mallory, an evangelical Christian, says she finds the book offensive to her Christian faith and harmful to her children’s spiritual health. She even blames Harry Potter for school shootings!

Now all this sounds like a personal problem to me, given that her children attend government schools. There’s a lot about such schools I don’t like, which is why if I ever have children, they won’t be going to government schools.

For over a year, Mallory has been trying to convince the Gwinnett County Board of Education in Georgia to remove the Harry Potter books from library shelves. After the local board refused her request,” she took her case to the Georgia Board of Education, which upheld Gwinnett County’s decision.

(Also see “Potter vote no surprise” and “Mother May Appeal Harry Potter Books Decision.”)

If I had children, I wouldn’t want them to read books like Heather Has Two Mommies, but trying to get the book banned would be the last thing I’d do. A child’s education begins at home. Bad influences from the outside will creep in, but that is part of the spiritual journey, so to speak.

The Bible teaches that believers should teach their children about God and his commands. At the same time, part of any spiritual journey involves facing temptation and overcoming it, and children need to learn how to do this. I believe what Mallory is doing is counterproductive. Her time and energy would be better spent training her children’s young minds to formulate and support arguments, and articulate why they believe Harry Potter is “dangerous” for Christians.

Yes, I wrote that. In a way, I support Mallory’s decision to keep Harry Potter from her children. If she believes the books are dangerous, she, as a mother, has a responsibility to protect them. In fact, I don’t think young children should read the later books because of their dark themes. The sorcery is secondary.

Keeping “bad” books out of the house is one thing, but trying to keep them out of government schools is quite another. I’ve expressed my views about government schooling. I support school choice. Taxpaying parents should be allowed to move their kids from low-performing to higher-performing government schools if they wish. I also think parents who currently send kids to private schools ought to get a tax break. And I’m a passionate advocate of homeschooling.

Book banning stinks of medieval hysteria. Just as it embarrasses me to hear and read about blacks fighting for lowered standards, it embarrasses me to hear and read about professing Christians trying to ban books for “promoting” the occult. If your kid is in a government school filled with books on homosexuality and Harry Potter — and you don’t want them reading about either topic — explain to them why the books go against your values and why you don’t want them reading such books. Banning a book (excluding child pornography) only provides a slippery slope for banning others, including books you may like. It’s dangerous, ignorant, and uncool.

Remember what the character Hermione Granger said in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix? After nasty Professor Dolores Umbridge forbade students from reading a tabloid called The Quibbler because it featured a Harry Potter interview that made the Ministry of Magic look bad, Hermoine was happy. The best way to make sure someone reads something, she said, is to ban it.

Take a memo, Laura Mallory.

Harry Potter-related books:

• The Ivory Tower And Harry Potter: Perspectives On A Literary Phenomenon (excellent)
• Muggles and Magic: An Unofficial Guide to J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter Phenomenon (quite good)
• Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts (enjoyable)

More sites and articles:

• Accio Quote, a collection of J.K. Rowling’s media interviews
• The True Christian Myth Behind Harry Potter
• Harry Potter criticism
• Harry Potter: Can A Wizard Teach Moral Lessons?
• Hoodwinked by Harry? (I met Mark D. Roberts at GodBlogCon.)
• Is “Harry Potter” Harmless?
• Harry Potter and the Existence of God
• J.K. Rowling, Inkling?
• Severus Snape: The Unlikely Hero of Harry Potter book 7
• Deconstructing Rowling
• Pastor and blogger David Wayne’s Potter-related posts:
  1) Are “Harry Potter” and “Left Behind” Pretty Much the Same Thing?
  2) The Subtly Christian Worldview of J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter
  3) Shadowmancer – Hotter than Potter!
  4) Harry Potter is Heating Up Again
  5) The limits of metaphor

I was shocked to learn that Austria has a law against, “whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media.” (Source)

They’re kidding, right?

Don’t get me wrong. I understand how angry some are when people downplay or deny the Jewish Holocaust, but to make the public expression of it a crime?

Thank God I’m living in America.

No matter how despicable an utterance, no one should go to prison for expressing an idea. But I guess such a sentiment is uniquely American.

(AP Photo)

FullosseousFlap writes: “Now you know why the American Founders wrote the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…”

Update (2/21): I took a class on the First Amendment in law school. Although taking such a class isn’t necessary to understand the law, it helps. At the very least, this Holocaust buzz provides an opportunity to read the annotated First Amendment.

Even before the class, I knew that certain forms of speech weren’t protected, despite the plain language of the law:

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…

(I had a retro-hippy professor, ACLU-type, and he kept stressing over and over, “Congress shall make no law!” whenever he introduced a new category of unprotected speech.)

Seems clear enough on its face, doesn’t it? Not quite. We know, for instance, that no one has the freedom to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Why? There would be panic, a stampede, and people would be hurt. There is no freedom to make false reports. Other forms of speech NOT protected by the FA: obscenity, defamation, incitement to crime, “fighting words,” sedition…

The way courts interpret the FA has evolved over the years. Read the background of the development of the FA, the controversial doctrine of prior restraint, and the clear and present danger test. In fact, you should read all the annotations under Freedom of Expression (“Expression” can be verbal, symbolic, artistic…).

Despite the plain language of the law, courts have interpreted it in different ways. For example, political speech is the most protected form of speech. Why? The freedom to express dissent and disgust for the government is the essence of political freedom. Commercial speech receives less protection because the government has broad powers to regulate commerce.

Then there’s the issue of which standard to apply. Content-based restrictions on freedom of speech receive strict scrutiny in the courts. That is, the government must have a “compelling state interest” in restricting the speech and the restriction must be “narrowly tailored” to serve that end. It’s all very fascinating.

I can’t find many good sites on the FA, but after you’ve read the FindLaw entry, read Cornell Law School’s entry and visit the First Amendment Center.

Someone in the comment section mentioned Cindy Sheehan. At first we thought she was thrown out of the State of the Union speech for wearing a T-shirt that listed Iraq war casualties. Then we heard she was causing a ruckus. Then the Capitol Police apologized to her and dropped the unlawful conduct charges. When I thought she was removed for wearing a T-shirt with an “anti-war” message, I defended her.

Another Update: Jeff Jarvis says:

I am troubled at government regulation of speech for the chill it creates….

Ah, but you may argue that his fascist intellectual forefathers incited the worst imaginable crimes and so isn’t such hateful speech worth banning? No, I’d argue that the problem in Nazi Germany was not so much that the haters could speak but that they could ban their opponents from speaking. The cold of the chill is more dangerous than the heat of the hate. I believe that a free marketplace of speech will succeed where a closed and controlled public square will fail. (Emphasis added)

Update (12/5): New stuff!

—————————————————————————————————————————-
What does the head-geek-in-charge think he’s doing? Censoring Chinese bloggers just like communist China does? What goes on here?

Microsoft’s MSN Spaces is censoring bloggers. American blogger Rebecca MacKinnon has the scoop:

On December 16th I created a blog and attempted to make various posts with politically sensitive words. When I attempted to post entries with titles like “Tibet Independence” or “Falun Gong” (a banned religious group), I got an error message saying: “This item includes forbidden language. Please delete forbidden language from this item.”

However I was successful in posting blog entries with non-controversial titles, but with politically sensitive words in the text body. For instance, a blog post titled “I love you” had “Tibet independence” in the text body, and a post titled “I am happy” had “Falun Gong” in the body, like so…

Bill, your innovative work with the personal computer was revolutionary and made possible by living in a country that allows a free market system and free expression of ideas. Pay attention to what’s going on in your company and stop the censorship now!

Related:

• How Beijing Censors the Blogosphere
• China’s web censors struggle to muzzle free-spirited bloggers
• Chinese Blogosphere: Year in Review

Everyone here knows the Scobleizer, right? Oh…just us business bloggers? OK. He works for Microsoft and adds his views to the discussion.

Hube here again!

Via the man whom I consider my “blogfather,” John Rosenberg and his awesome site Discriminations, comes word of a possible NAACP boycott of The Michigan Daily, the University of Michigan’s student newspaper, because of this cartoon it ran on November 28:

NAACP 2nd Vice President Jamila Fair said the cartoon reduced affirmative action to a black-white issue. Affirmative action policies do not only benefit blacks but also groups such as women and other minorities, Fair said.

“It makes it seem like affirmative action is only a black and white issue,” Fair said. “To the NAACP it was a slap in the face. It hurt what we are trying so hard to fight.”

NAACP members said the Daily should not have printed the cartoon because they said it is racist. Members also said that the cartoon stereotypes blacks as a minority group that is both abusing affirmative action policies and underqualified to attend the University.

It comes as little surprise that the NAACP considers the cartoon “racist.” Virtually any form of dissent to what the NAACP desires is considered such. Ironically, Rosenberg received word of the cartoon from Jennifer Gratz, the plaintiff in the landmark US Supreme Court case on affirmative action. The SCOTUS actually decided two cases regarding the University of Michigan, and Gratz is the case in which they ruled harshest on AA. In Gratz, underrepresented minorities were “awarded” extra points (20, to be precise) in the admissions process. (Grutter was the other case in which the SCOTUS ruled that race can be used in admissions, but must be “narrowly tailored.”)

But back to the Michigan Daily. The Daily backs race-based admissions policies in its unsigned editorials, but that isn’t good enough for the NAACP.

Daily Editor in Chief Jason Pesick — who made the ultimate decision to run the cartoon — defended the paper’s handling of the cartoon.

“We give cartoonists and columnists on the edit page a great deal of latitude,” he said. “Their views don’t necessarily reflect the views of the editorial page or the paper as a whole.”

[Cartoonist Michelle] Bien said she wanted to portray a variety of races in the cartoon but did not know how to draw certain other ethnic groups. She said children in the cartoon with dark faces were meant to represent many minority groups and not just blacks.

Well, why not? Doesn’t the NAACP consider Hispanics, Native Americans and/or Asian Indians “people of color”? Why did the organization automatically assume all the dark faces in the cartoon were African-American students? (Were they stereotyping?) In addition, Bien indeed could have made the subject of the professor’s explanation Asian, since it is they who are, as Abigail Thernstrom argues, most negatively affected by affirmative action (or affirmative discrimination, if you prefer).

If you criticize the culture of death, perversion, “choice,” or any religion that’s not Christianity, they call you phobic. If you criticize Christianity, which heavily influenced western culture (a culture that Islam opposes, by the way), you’re enlightened, intellectual, rational, progressive, free-thinking, tolerant. The irony is lost in the PC shuffle.

I thank God in heaven that such things embolden me instead of weaken me. Through him alone I have the courage to say what needs to be said, no matter how unpopular. Without him, I don’t think I could do this every day. Being a “voice in the wilderness” is something I expect to be for the rest of my life, and I feel no urge to explain myself, my words, or my beliefs to people who don’t want to listen. Each thing I say and do speaks for itself, and as long as I’m alive, I’ll continue to say it and do it, whether or not people want to hear it.

The truth, hidden from some for God’s own purposes, will make itself known.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so let’s round up some “Christianophobia” quotes from the media and bloggers. The entry needs balance and up-to-date information. I’ve already got a blogger and one of his many inane quotes in mind. How about you?

I wonder if Islamofascists can be considered “headophobic?”

Related post: No Such Thing As Bad Publicity

Update (7/10): “Every day it is thrown in your face. A small minority group — extremely small, maybe 3% of the population en toto, demanding that you not only allow for their sexual perversion, but, more so, that you abandon any way of thinking — religious, moral, social — that would say that their perversion is anything but good and moral. Out of the half dozen examples of this in the news and e-mail this morning, I present my experience last night in going home and flipping on the TV while setting up my bike for a run on my trainer this morning.”

The rest.

How appropriate that I chose to invoke the First Amendment (see post below) on the very day the Federal Election Commission (FEC) held a hearing on regulation of the Internet. You may recall that a few weeks ago FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith warned us that the FEC was considering applying campaign finance reform laws to “online political activity,” including political writing in the blogosphere.

The result was a blog swarm that united liberal and conservative bloggers (Also see this post). This unity led to the drafting of a bipartisan online petition, which has been signed by 3,239 people at this writing. The opinion storm got the attention of cable and broadcast news networks.

Yesterday FEC commissioners discussed how far to extend its burdensome regulations. According to the AP:

The Federal Election Commission took its first step Thursday in extending campaign finance controls to political activity on the Internet, asking for public input on limited regulations for the freewheeling medium.

Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, who took the lead on drafting proposals with vice chairman Michael Toner, described the steps as “restrained.” The commission emphasized a hands-off approach to bloggers, or authors of Web logs, among the loudest and unruliest voices online.

“We are not the speech police,” said Weintraub, a Democrat. “The FEC does not tell private citizens what they can or cannot say, on the Internet, or elsewhere.

That’s the kind of Democrat I like. We have the same interest in protecting each other’s right to express ourselves.

Once again I’m a bit late on this, but other bloggers are on top of things. Kevin of Wizbang writes: “The Federal Election Commission held hearings on their proposed rules for the application of campaign finance rules to blogs and websites. Even with the rules currently being discussed group sites like Wizbang, The Volokh Conspiracy, and thousands of others might not be exempt. Incorporated sites like DailyKos, Gawker Media, RedState, RawStory, etc. would have to qualify for a government cleared media exemption on case-by-case basis.”

RedState has a whole section dedicated to FEC news, and Winfield Myers at the Democracy Project has a series of informative posts (also see Michelle Malkin, Polipundit and ThoughtsOnline).

A site called Personal Democracy Forum has been doing an admirable job (via Richard Hasen) analyzing the draft regulations and asking some intriguing questions: Hasen writes:

[T]he greater danger of the FEC’s proposals, if enacted as they are, is the additional uncertainty that they would create. For example, consider someone who has a private website or blog that contains occasional political commentary. Suppose the blogger owns the site as a corporation. Corporations cannot engage in certain election-related activities except through a separate political action committee subject to numerous reporting and disclosure requirements. Can the blogger post commentaries calling for the election or defeat of a candidate for President? The draft rules extend the media exemption to news stories, commentaries and editorials appearing over the Internet, but written materials in this category must appear in a “newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication.” It is not clear that a blogger fits into this category, particularly if the blogger does not post regularly.

Regarding the media exemption to the FEC’s regulations, it’s arguable that blogs are media. According to the Library of Congress’s definition of serial publications (print or non-print publications issued in parts, usually bearing issue numbers and/or dates), blogs are indeed serial publications, just like magazines, newspapers, etc. If that’s the case, blogs should be exempt from regulation. The freedom of the press could easily extend to us.

Let’s say I really do qualify as a “blogosphere reporter” for MSNBC and drop the quotation marks. As someone reporting news, I am a member of the press, right? What I report on MSNBC would be considered news. In the same vein, my blog is a news column, where I generate reports for MSNBC and my audience. Along with any straight reporting I may do, I may also write editorials in support of a political candidate.

I could be extending this too far, but I wanted you to see the problems arising out of any regulation of the blogosphere. Some bloggers consider themselves hobbyists; others call themselves “the media.” I don’t think a government bureaucrat is qualified to make the call. Bloggers shouldn’t have to worry about any of this stuff in the first place. The FEC needs to keep its unwanted groping hands off.

America’s great selling point is freedom of expression. I implore the government not to play communist dictator and start controlling something as free-flowing, creative and expansive as the Internet. Let it continue to shape-shift and flourish unimpeded. Those with evil intent will make it harder on the rest of us, but the unencumbered exchange of ideas is priceless.

The power of the Internet is the same kind that propelled adventurers and risk-takers to experiment, create and fight for something magnificent: the United States of America.

I don’t hear people saying “eat your heart out” much anymore, but if Mr. Orwell were around, I’d dropped him an e-mail. The world he made up in 1984 is indeed reality. Words and symbols we don’t like, we ban and/or shroud in politically correct (and often nonsensical) terms. Orwell’s “thoughtcrime” is our “hate crime.” Want to know what I think of hate crime laws? Check this out.

A European Union official is considering banning the swastika. If I have to explain why this is dumb, counterproductive, dangerous and repugnant, you haven’t been reading this blog long enough. Perhaps it isn’t for you.

While I “get” that Europe is not America, we’re not far from it, my friends. What are the implications of banning the Confederate flag, for example, if that were to ever happen?

Important Update (5:53 p.m.): Speaking of “hate crime,” you might be interested in this one. A grand jury in Oregon “declined” to charge a black ball player, who attacked a white man because he’s white and married to a black woman, with a hate crime.

The man who got knocked out is a member of the National Guard, and he was dancing with his wife and celebrating his last night of leave before going back to Iraq when the ignorant ball-playing thugs got in his face. If I’d been on that grand jury…

This is only one case, but let’s be honest. Hate crime laws are designed to protect the sensibilities of blacks and homosexuals, as if they were children, and penalize whites for thinking nasty thoughts, not the other way around. That’s how they were conceived, that’s how they’re carried out. When I first read about this incident, I knew exactly what would happen. Laws for me but not for thee.

If you’re interested in reading more, see Riley discusses suspension of players.