By Selwyn Duke

Last year’s scamnesty bill
had widespread support among the powers-that-be, with the president,
the Democrat majority and mainstream media all singing its praises.
Yet it went down to defeat, slain by a new-media coalition of talk
radio and blogosphere warriors.  Working tirelessly to expose the truth
and rally the grassroots, they became a David who slew a Goliath. 

Forty-three
years ago it was a different world.  Ted Kennedy had co-authored the
"Immigration Reform Act of 1965," which created a situation wherein 85
percent of our immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia.  He took
to the Senate floor, claimed his brainchild wouldn’t change the
demographic composition of the nation and passed the culture-rending
bill under the cover of darkness.

This
darkness was not absence of light but that of truth; it was a media
blackout.  With no Internet and little talk radio, mainstream
journalists had a monopoly over the hearts and minds of America.  And
they knew best.  The little people didn’t have to worry their pretty
little heads about actions that would forever alter the face of the
nation.

This
is why the old media fears the new one.  The latter watches the
watchers, polices the police.  It has cut into the Rathersphere’s
market, causing a diminution of circulation, viewership and – this is
what really gets their collars up — power.  They can no longer
propagandize with Tass-like impunity, for the e-hills have eyes. 

Yet
this is no time for a victory dance.  The new media is under attack, as
the left aims to silence dissent before it grows strong enough to block
the thought police’s coup de grace.  This is the race for the American
mind. 

And we are losing. 

The
attack upon free expression is more varied than one may think, but I’ll
start with the obvious.  Most have heard of the euphemistically-named
"Fairness Doctrine," which would essentially eliminate traditionalist
talk radio.  People such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh may then
be relegated to satellite – assuming they’re willing to leap into the
ether – and its far smaller audience. 

Then we have hate speech laws, which empower governments to punish people
of politically incorrect passions.  In Europe, Canada and elsewhere,
average citizens have suffered persecution for criticizing
homosexuality and Islam and voicing other unfashionable truths.  And as
hate speech laws become more entrenched and accepted, the list of
taboos of the tongue grows longer – and more widespread.  They’re
coming soon to a theater of social operations near you.

And
these laws are netting the famous as well as the anonymous.  Two
Canadian "Human Rights Commissions" are investigating columnist Mark
Steyn and the country’s bestselling news magazine, Macleans,
because it published an excerpt from Steyn’s book containing criticism
of Islam.  In Britain in 2003, Scotland Yard launched an investigation
of colorful commentator Taki Theodoracopulos – not for using more
letters in a name than one ought – but for "inciting racial hatred" by
writing that most criminals in northern English cities were black thugs
who belonged to gangs.  Across the North Sea in Germany, a leftist
politician filed charges against the citizen encyclopedia "Wikipedia"
because one of its entries contained too much Nazi symbolism.  Here’s
the kicker: It was a piece about the Hitler Youth.  Then there’s Jewish
historian Arno Lustiger, who filed a lawsuit in Germany against Vanity Fair magazine because it published an interview with a neo-Nazi.

While
the stout-hearted Mark Steyn won’t end up cooling his heels or
capitulating, the same cannot be said of everyone.  Wikipedia caved
quickly and altered its content, and, although we can expect greater
fortitude from more professional operations, the implications are
ominous.  As such investigations, charges and lawsuits become more
prevalent and start to stick, the media will be increasingly gun shy
about publishing politically incorrect views.  Fewer and fewer will
deviate from the new Tass line, until news and commentary are banal,
barren and bereft of truth.

Surely,
though, some of the millions of blogs and other Internet sources would
not be cowed, and it would be hard to arrest every one of their
operators.  But the government won’t have to.  There’s more than one
way to skin a Constitution. 

While
the Internet seems like a wild and woolly land of bits and bytes, just
as information can be transmitted at the touch of a button, so can it
be suppressed.  Remember, when spreading your message, you’re at the
mercy of an Internet Service Provider (ISP), hosting company and, to a
lesser extent, services that disseminate information, such as search
engines.  And as these businesses have already proven, they’re more
interested in currency than current events. 

Consider
Google’s well-publicized capitulation to communist China.  Using a
filter known informally as "The Great Firewall of China," the search
engine’s Chinese version censors information about the independence
movement in Tibet, the Tiananmen Square protests and anything else
China’s commissars find objectionable. 

It seems like Google’s motto "Don’t be evil" should have a corollary: "But cooperating with it is fine."  

It should be noted that Google censors information in its German and French searches as well (and probably elsewhere).

Then
there’s Google’s subsidiary YouTube.  Early last year it agreed to
remove a video Turks found objectionable after a court in Turkey
ordered that the site should be blocked in that nation.  It took
YouTube all of two days to say mercy.

But
direct government action isn’t necessary for censorship, as social
pressure often suffices.  In fact, the private sector often enforces
"hate speech" codes even where states do not, such as here in the US.
In 2006, pundit Michelle Malkin’s mini-movie "First, They Came"– it
showcases victims of Islamic violence — was deleted by YouTube
after being "flagged" as inappropriate.  Malkin isn’t alone, either, as
other anti-Islamism crusaders have not only had videos pulled, but
accounts suspended as well.

Getting
back to Google, it has also been censoring traditionalist websites from
its news search for quite some time now; entities such as The New Media Journal, Michnews.com and PHXnews.com have been victims, just to name a few.

While
these information sources can still be accessed, such censorship takes
its toll.  When the most powerful search engine in the world strikes
you from its news service, it reduces both your readership and the
amount of information at users’ fingertips. 

Censorship
threatens individual activism as well.  There are now countless
everyday folks who disseminate information via email, sometimes to
thousands of recipients.  It’s a quick, efficient and, most
importantly, free way to sound the alarm about matters of import. 

Yet email is far from sacrosanct.  Social commentators Dr. David Yeagley and Amil Imani had their MSN Hotmail accounts terminated for criticizing Islam.
Then there are the proposals to tax or levy fees on email, a truly
stifling measure.  It would make bulk transmissions prohibitively
expensive for the average citizen, thereby robbing him of a resonant
Web voice.

It
doesn’t take the prescience of Nostradamus to project into the future.
If political correctness continues to capture minds and hearts, the
pressure – both governmental and social – to call truth "hate speech"
and censor it will continue to grow.  What happens when search engines
not only purge traditionalist dissent from their news services, but
also their search results?  What about when sites won’t publish such
content for fear of being swept away in the ideological cleansing?
These entities will fold like a laptop. 

It
could reach a point where ISPs won’t service you if you send the
"wrong" kinds of emails and will block "hateful" sites.  Don’t forget
that "access forbidden" prompt.  At the end of the day – and it may be
the end of days – hosting companies may just decide that such sites’
business is no longer welcome, and registrars may even freeze their
domains (a hosting company provides a site’s "edifice"; a domain is its
"address").  They may be consigned to Internet oblivion.

While
these forces march on, we "haters" are busy educating more people every
day about the their nature.  This brings us to the race for the
American mind.  If we could influence enough citizens to reject
political correctness and oust public officials who serve its ends – if
we could sufficiently transform the culture – the dropping of this iron
muzzle could be forestalled.  By spreading the truth we could ensure
that the thought police wouldn’t succeed in suppressing it.

But there’s a reason why I phrased that in the subjunctive.

We are losing.

Education
isn’t easy when people aren’t listening.  A great victory for the left
is that it has dumbed-down civilization, making people lovers of
frivolity and vice, comfortably numb.  It has created legions of
disengaged, apathetic hedonists who wouldn’t read a piece of commentary
if it was pasted to a stripper.  Such people can be led by the nose
and, when they occasionally notice the goings-on in their midst, will
welcome the silencing of the "haters." 

And what of us — you?  If you are a "hater," your voice will grow fainter, fainter, fainter . . . .

Toward
the end, perhaps when tired and old, you’ll have no recourse but to
mount a soapbox and preach on some busy corner, as people nervously
avert their eyes or measure you up for a straightjacket.  That is,
until the men in white coats or black uniforms come and take you to a
happy place, or a sad one, the last stop in this world for
recalcitrants.

                                                         Protected by Copyright