The "tech giants" have all cut off Parler, a "free speech" free for all and potential alternative platform for trump. It had become a sanctuary for those who would violate the Capital and the very institution of our country.

Now there is gnashing of teeth and whining about the infringement of free speech---thank goodness

I am as concerned with limits on free speech as most of you--but there comes a point were "free speech" becomes poisonous--and we have excided that. Talk of "putting a bullet in the noggin" of an old woman is simply beyond the limits of a civilized society.

I am also encouraged by Simon & Shuster standing up to the "traitor" hawley---we need more companies to take a stand. (as a side note I think he should be expelled)

My first reaction to Kevin's call to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine left me cautious---but I am warming to that suggestion. In short, the doctrine is:

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.

That would make the current ability of anyone to isolate themselves to a singular thinking---as it relates to our current situation----at best difficult. Rather than listen to lies about a stolen election from morning to night they would be exposed to "the rest of the story"---even as declared by AG Barr et al. Those that attacked the Capital live in an altered reality--and based on our options of communicating today that is easily done.

I'm not sure how the doctrine would apply to someone like limbaugh but I can see it causing Fox and CNN to shift their programing.

As I say that, I think about all the attacks against the NYT---by those who have never picked one up in their lives. Their hatred comes from their rabid right sources---and they buy into it. I do not see the Fairness Doctrine impacting "responsible speech" on either side of the aisle----my two daily papers (the NYT and the WSJ) could continue holding their current (and vastly opposite) biases, but they could not cross the line to inflammatory rhetoric---and there I get back to the point of beginning---who determines were the line is?