I just heard from Sen. Lautenberg’s office, responding to my request to testify before today’s Commerce Committee decency hearing. Doug Mehan, a legislative assistant, explained that even Lautenberg has little influence on the witness list. It’s a prerogative of the chairman, he said. The chairman decides whom to hear — or more to the point, not to hear. They should call them Senate unhearings.
I said it is shameful that Brent Bozell is heard — though he does not represent mainstream America — and no one is called on to speak for First Amendment rights in a Senate hearing about government restricting speech. He was sympathetic but shrugged. Politics. Washington. Power.
: Howard 100 News, Stern’s full-time news staff on Sirius, is going to be at the hearings this morning, covering them. Thank goodness there’ll be one journalist there who operates under the motto that should guide all journlists: “No more bullshit.”
: LATER: I appeared on Howard 100 News this evening on the topic.
Good for you for trying, Jeff. This is absolutely disgraceful. Choosing only one person’s idea of witnesses essentially eliminates the purpose of hearings, which is to enlighten the committee members. If only one side of an issue is heard, it’s like a court refusing to hear the defense or the prosecution, and then deciding a case.
You may send all committee members your proposed testimony anyway, and request that it be included in the record by them. An individual Senator can ask for that.
Jeff:
re: witness. seems like Lautenberg’s office sort of fudged the answer. the minority has the right to have their own witnesses present and heard. typically it is based on agreement between the chairman and the ranking minority member (Senator Inouye – HI) as to numbers etc. Senator Lautenberg would send his witness requests to Senator Inouye (for him to put on the minority list) so if anyone is going to deep six you it would be him. My guess is that Lautenberg does not want to be anywhere near a witness that the press would describe as a “Howard Stern Advocate” nor do any of the rest of the Democrats on the panel. This FCC stuff is a pox on both the democrats and republicans. As a right of center individual/conservative/libertarian it makes me want to tear my hair out when i hear Ted Stevens talk about what he considers obscene. But I find the fact that successive democratic administrations have give Howard the cold shoulder – anyone remember Reed Hundt – Bill Clintons FCC Chief?
There may be reasons for congressional hearings, but informing the legislators is not one of them. That’s why they are always scripted. Either the members want a platform from which to make a speech (see Alito hearings), or they want some point brought forward for public exposure in a way seemingly not as part of their stated political position.
By getting an “authority” to give testimony, it gives weight to whatever viewpoint they are pushing.
If legislators want to know something they have their staffs prepare or a report. Or, nowadays, they just have their pet lobbyist explain what to support.
I am inclined to agree with Ron, while the Chairman have a large part of the decision making, the minority can get speakers on a hearing if they want, especially in the Senate as it tends to be a more friendly place in regards of committee work and general operations in comparison to the House.
The committee hearings I’ve worked on have definitely had the purpose of learning experiences of the witnesses and background for legislative framing. Of course I worked with Dems, and they were working for the public interest.
So let me get this straight: you don’t think Brent Bozell should be heard at a hearing about free speech and First Amendment rights, and if you had your way he wouldn’t have the opportunity to speak.
Hmmm…that sounds kind of odd to me. It’s like you would stop his right to speak if you had the opportunity and power. But doesn’t that contradict what you’re saying about free speech and the First Amendment?
Maybe you wrote that you should be heard in addition to Brent Bozell. Let me check…
“I said it is shameful that Brent Bozell is heard — though he does not represent mainstream America — and no one is called on to speak…”
Hmmmm…sounds like you’re saying Bozell has no business speaking his mind, but maybe you’re not. With your track record of ranting against anyone who doesn’t agree with you — all in the name of free speech, of course — sometimes it’s hard to tell who you believe deserves the freedom to speak.
If Stevens wants to better spend the tax payers’ money in a search for ways to keep children safe from allegedly “indecent material” perhaps he can just take a drive to the local consumer electronics store and have a salesperson explain to him how the V-chip in the television works and how to program a satelite receiver to block certain channels.
Sure, why not Bozell? How about Wildmon and even Fred Phelps? Bring ‘em on! In fairness, they should also let Howard, Bubba the Love Sponge, and Bill Maher give the First Amendment side, reminding the Republican inquisitors that we STILL have one.
Jones, Brent Bozell supports the suppression of free speech in favor of spiritually correct speech. The committee in question is, de facto, supporting the Bozell’s of the world by having only those who support spiritually correct speech testify. Jeff Jarvis and others who support free speech need not apply.
I, like Jeff, support having alternative voices. I want the spiritually correct crowd to have their day. But, I also want others heard as well. A democracy can only function when all have the opportunity to be heard. When only a few are allowed to address the halls of power then democracy is in trouble.
ruth:
ok i’ll take the bait. since your world is binary – please describe the “public interest” that you as a democrat were for and that the evil republicans were against? were they trying to poison the water again?
also when you say “work” what does that mean – were/are you a congressional staffer?
I am curious how jeff and the rest of the first amendment warriors here feel about McCain-Feingold? if there ever was an outright savaging of the first amendment that surely is the poster child.
I’ll be listening to the Howard News piece tonight. Good try.
Jeff,
Attempting to get on a witness panel at the last minute is not an effective strategy. You would be better served putting your thoughts in writing (email works fine) and sending them to your senators and to the committee chair. In my experience panels are selected months in advance after first having the benefit of staff review. Most likely each person or organization represented on the panel has a history of being vocal with hill staff. Don’t hate the system – work within the system. Hill staff are hard working and, the majority, intellectually honest folks.
Ron Pettengill;
Was Congressional and later Md. Hse of Del’s staff, was usually for adequate protections in Civ.Serv. P.O. Subcommittee on Hill, a few on environmental protections including funding nat’l parks which had been created when attempt was to defund acquisition – MD. one of main ones was to balance funds for arts equally among recipients instead of wild favoritism toward Rep’n areas.
wild favoritism = patronage? which of course we all know has no place in democratic administrations. right?
RP; Taxation without representation is a very old issue in the history of this democracy, and I have never worked with any elected official of the Dem. party who has sought unbalanced funding, or stripped away funds from public programs to benefit a political constituency. ‘everyone did it’ kind of failed with Nixon.
Bill–Bubba the Love Sponge? If you’re going to allow speech from a sponge you’re gonna have to dial up Sponge Bob. Cartoon characters have rights too.
Yes, Menlo Bob; everyone including cartoon characters AND Triumph the Insult Dog should be afforded 1st Amendment protection…..what’s left of it.
I never really believed in Conspiracy Theories but when you get Alex Jones et al to speak on how the government censors folks on both left and right one has to wonder, is this Republican and Democrat Party we see today overtaken by some neo-fascist? It’s getting to look more and more like that http://prisonplanet.com