The censorship of a written opinion either by a Liberal or  Republican publication ....

    .... is to us who venerate freedom of expression, a matter of life and death. What I am about to share with you is not just about the suppression of an article but a censorship of authors and authorship in violation of privacy right and freedom of expression.

Are desperate online publications now censoring opinion writers for their November 2008 agenda?

The 2008 presidential election is to the Liberals, a do-or-die O.K Coral shootout for power. They appear desperate and could not afford to take chances … even opinions that have a conservative tone written by apolitical authors to enlighten American voters to vote freely the candidate of their choice in this coming presidential election are toxic to this selfish political agenda.

This garden of opposing political views is a no-no and must be fumigated if not expurgated by means fair or foul, in the same way that to politically intoxicated talk shows and driving under the influence [DUI] online publications, freely expressed contrary opinions of journalists have to be weeded out like wild grass that must neither grow nor flourish.

Leave this abduction and subjugation of the journalists’ right to free expression as to which candidate is fit to become the next President of the United States, to the radical Media. For example, online left-leaning publications, like what the American Chronicle network [ACN] is known to be, are dropping the blade of this guillotine gag on the neck of opinion writers that are hard to silent.

The censorship of a written opinion either by a progressive or conservative publication is to us who venerate freedom of expression, a matter of life and death. What I am about to share with you is not just about the suppression of an article but a censorship of authors and authorship in violation of privacy right and freedom of expression. [Read also Part II:  How-Why Media Gag Authors.]

An award winning journalist wrote a critique on the candidacy of Republican presidential aspirant Ron Paul. Paul is currently campaigning to become the 2008 GOP presidential standard bearer.  He has every right of a citizen to aspire for the highest office of the land. I have nothing but high respect for this man’s courage in making public his agenda when he becomes President of the United States no matter how this may seem “odd” and objectionable if not to most of his vocal critics in public, to the majority of the disapproving Americans.

What seemed to be the problem in the eyes of the radical Media that censored this research-backed expose’ of Paul the candidate, was that the written editorial pictured an America with a 2008 elected President who hates the Federal Government, a President who blames his own government for 9/11, a country without income tax; an isolationist America – the richest and the mightiest power on the planet – sans our current leadership in the international community and, if Dr. Paul becomes the next President, Americans would have no ties whatsoever with the “greedy, light-fingered globalist United Nations”… these and many more “oddities” were portrayed in the editorial, which the author believed American voters have a constitutional right to know.

ACN published the article for about 4-5 days. It hit a 3,000-5000 viewing/readership in lest than 24 hours. Then all of a sudden the article disappeared … deleted from ACN and the Internet. ACN e-mailed Paul Paul’s candidacy. ACN e-mailed Paul supporters to use the deletion in promoting Paul’s candidacy.

The excuse for removal – the article was vitriolic, a violation of ACN’s editorial policy.   

Not quite true … this excuse hoodwinked the reading public.  It is contrary to what ACN advocates. ACN encourages strongly worded spiteful articles – so long as these are written by Liberal writers, especially when directed against the incumbent Republican-run government, particularly against the leadership of very much maligned President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney … the Liberals’ conservative adversaries across the line of the great divide.    

With disapproval and fearful concerns, this is what makes our freedom loving forebears stir in their grave.

Free speech and the freedom of expression that they had fought and died for have been grossly violated if not terribly bastardized. The Media that they painfully shielded in the cradle of free expression when they ordained the Constitution is now feared more than they originally feared a government they sought to tame and neutralize because it is likely to suppress free speech if a tyrant is at the helm of power.

Today high caliber authors have difficulty trying to find a publication to write for and publish their differing opinions/editorial insights/reports together in a well-read single publication … a politically color-blind vehicle of freedom of expression that would satisfy the need of the American public.

With different, nay, opposing views – which is what America is all about – the American public thirst for this kind of a free media outlet that accommodates contrary views to educate and enliven the spirit of the masses, and widen the vision of average Americans every time they open their eyes to the problems and debate their democratic solutions to the problems, a true democracy in action that we expect in our free society.

Indeed, it is so depressing to witness a progressive online publication censoring a satirical critique of Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Liberal, because it is written by a conservative writer, and an expose’ of Republican candidate Ron Paul who is actually a Libertarian in thoughts and deeds, because it is written by a non-politically affiliated journalist.

Yet the same publication would publish a diatribe on the face of its announced editorial policy against vitriolic articles, when the article describing VP Cheney as a “fat slug” and President Bush as a President with a “syphilis-ravaged brain” is written by a radical activist. This self-incriminating censorship perpetrated by a biased Media, which is inimical to public interest, may be read in these online sites:  http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=
31238 [read the last paragraph]

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=
31369 [read the title and 4th paragraph].

Note: This author warned American Chronicle of legal action if libelous paragraphs are not removed. AC management complied. Read  AmChron Truncates Personal Attacks To Elude Libel Suit ]. The last paragraph of the 1st article and the 4th paragraph of the 2nd article referred to above, were removed. Go to NWS at http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/400/2/.

Besides this prevalent rape of freedom of expression by certain rogue media publications operating in the real and virtual world of cyber communication which may be aptly described as today’s emerging neoclassical power of publicly pampered Fourth Estate that claimed to be an ardent suitor of free speech, what is collaterally objectionable is the tragic loss of sense of propriety when we exercise the right to criticize in public.

We are free to censure our public officials from whichever side they are in the great divide, from the President down to the lowly janitor in the public service, but certainly not to the point of absconding our good taste and civility. Inversely, such incredible travesty of freedom of expression, when committed by politically rabid online publications, drops my jaw – and probably yours too -- if we flesh this with words quite honestly and without mental reservation.

I just want to share with you a first account experience that vividly describes this public anathema. In this writing discipline, I believe that as journalists we have a duty to call the attention of the American public. 

If it is a way of representing journalists endowed with extraordinarily independent minds, this first account editorial report has a twist of irony – there are exceptional groups of writers truly committed to the cause of free journalism in this country that are neither Liberals nor Conservatives.

In my case, I have no such party affiliation whatsoever. I just happen to be a passionate advocate of free speech, and a crusader for the commonweal that most of us perceived ought to be.

Unfortunately, Liberal or Conservative, that’s where the chips fall when the people that run the Media as a private property and without accountability, are desperate enough to can any journalist deemed a threat to their political agenda.

That’s where concerned journalists should climb the belfry and ring the bell of alarm to warn the American public before the sun of free speech that still shines on us, goes down.

© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad.  Access October 19, 2007.

The writer is a veteran diplomat-journalist for more than 45 years and a recipient of excellence awards in journalism. He is a former Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations; he is also an economist, a lawyer and an ASEAN specialist on fiscal policy and regional industrial cooperation. His human interest writings and editorial insights appear in other publications and published in several websites. A brief comment may be e-mailed to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

---