Stifling free speech

Okay, here's the deal. It is entirely legal for people to call a radio station in response to a talk show guest they disagree with. It is their right to do so, protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But if the McCain campaign had done what the Obama campaign has done, they would be excoriated.

Though we must acknowledge their rights, we nevertheless may criticize their method:

Never before had Rosenberg’s show been inundated with hysterical telephone calls and threatening emails aimed at not at debate but at disrupting a legitimate interview. The Obama campaign’s characterization of the Kurtz conversation as “the incoherent rantings” of an “unapologetic smear artist” is particularly absurd.

And we will note the hypocrisy:

During the August fiasco, outraged pro-Obama callers fumed that WGN had offered Kurtz an unchallenged forum, despite the fact that Team Obama had declined an invitation to appear alongside Kurtz for the duration of the program. This time, however, Freddoso was actually paired up with an Obama-supporting counterpart. This wasn’t good enough for the Obama thought police, who blasted out marching orders to shut down the discussion. Once again, the phones melted down. The Obama campaign should be proud.

I have no doubt that Obama would sign legislation re-instating the Fairness Doctrine should it come to his desk as President. But as these events show, fairness, no matter how it is defined, is not the agenda.

Update: Based on additional data, this appears to have been more along the lines of a denial of service attack. The goal was not just to express displeasure, but to clog the phone lines and bring down web servers to prevent the opposing point of view from being expressed. That does indeed cross the line. Perhaps not to the level of a crime, if only because existing law may not cover this situation, but certainly beyond the bounds of what is right.