We all should be familiar with the phrase “judicial activism” by now since it has been used several times in recent memory to determine if any judge should be allowed a seat on any bench by those in political offices who are tasked with that decision. I submit, that this has now become an epidemic not because it is necessary but because in order for those without to get justice they deserve, the “go-to” governmental offices established to protect the average individual’s rights no longer do so.
Case in point is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As an individual, I had filed a complaint regarding a prominent radio-talk show host who used his status to give rise to a movement touting that there were an “institutional hatred of America being taught” in African-American households. This was more than offensive to me as an African-American single father but more so as a former US Marine. Thinking that government affords even the average citizen protection from rhetoric which is designed to demean, belittle or make inferior any group that does not have the money, prestige or access to the means to level the playing field, I was quickly educated to the contrary.
I received this education via a letter from Sharon Bowers, Division Chief Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Inquires & Complaints Division. In the letter she states that “the Communications Act and the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibit any action by the FCC that would interfere with free speech in broad-casting. The FCC cannot interfere with broadcaster’s selection and presentation of material for the news and/or its commentary”. She goes on to say that any action by the broadcaster that does not present “a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil” are protected by the First Amendment”. While I applaud the stance on government not being allowed to tell broadcasters how and what material that they can choose for news and/or commentary, I take full exception to the phrase of outlandish language not being a “clear and present danger of serious substantive evil”.
My evidence is the rhetoric which leads to the killing of Dr. George Tiller where the rhetoric was so strong that weak minded people actually believed that they were in the right to take a life. They never considered that fighting for the life of a fetus did not give them the freedom to end another life. My evidence is attempting my pursuit of happiness being impeached and often times thwarted because of demeaning, belittling and careless language like that spewed by this radio-talk show host. It may not appear to be a clear and present evil to the FCC but try and tell that to someone who seeks a job but is denied because the interviewer believes that his race teaches hatred of America. Will this evidence ever see the light of day or get recorded, not likely because even those who have very strong beliefs about the illegitimacy of my race are smart enough to never let anyone hear them say it in public.
Right now the only protection the average citizen of modest or lesser means, have is through the courts and now that layer of protection may soon be taken away and only afforded to those with greater means. So, after that, where will the line be drawn?
No comments:
Post a Comment