[dc]D[/dcoes the American government requiring RT America—a Russian news organization—to register as a foreign agent under The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) constitute censorship by the government? If registration is NOT Censorship as many latter-day liberal McCarthyites contend, then Americans should NOT be afraid to appear on "RT America" as commentators presenting their opinions which are different from the current false narrative that is being propagated by the Mainstream Media in the United States. But Americans will be afraid due to "Guilt By Association".
Guilt by association in its current form is currently being used to suggest that any Russian who happens to be attending the same social event as President Trump is attending is therefore proof that Trump is a Russian collaborator. Thus by extrapolating this concept, guilt by association will be used to denounce any American who appears on RT America with a narrative that conflicts with the liberal narrative presently being broadcasted throughout America by the Mainstream Media.
To negate anyone who dares to present such an alternative opinion on RT America, the mainstream mMedia will immediate indict that American commentator—with an alternative opinion that conflicts with current narrative—as a "Russian agent" in order to prevent Americans from both/either listening and/or reading these alternative opinions—Censorship.
Some liberal media outlets have already censored stories when these alternative stories conflict with the current liberal narrative for what caused Hillary Clinton to lose to Donald Trump in the November 2017 elections.
Some liberal media outlets have already censored stories when these alternative stories conflict with the current liberal narrative for what caused Hillary Clinton to lose to Donald Trump in the November 2017 elections. The current narrative by the Mainstream Media is that Hillary Clinton was defeated due to the Russian government hacking into the computer servers at the DNC—Russia-Gate. Many liberal web sites are censoring any material that conflicts with this narrative of Russia_Gate. Case in point is an article written by Huffington Post's contributor Joe Lauria entitled "On The Origins of Russia-gate" that was removed—censored—by The Huffington Post because it conflicted with the current narrative.
One day after Lauria posted his article on the Huffington Post, the HuffPo editorial staff deleted—censored—the article. NOR did the editors attempt to contact Lauria before the deletion in order to explain why the liberal"readers were complaining. Or even to discuss with Lauria what facts he used in his article that were considered by HuffPo's editors to be either entirely false or else misleading. Although some have argued that HuffPo has the right to censure material published on its web site, HuffPo readers should NOT be involved in that determination. That is censorship by mob rule!
To explain what censorship looks like, watch the "70th Year Commemoration of the Hollywood Blacklist" that is on C-Span. The Commemoration read either the statements or the testimonies of the blacklisted" entertainers who appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in 1947. If today's liberals are infuriated by the 1947 proceedings of the HUAC and McCarthyism, then these liberals should NOT be in favor of today's censorship by the government. What HUAC and McCarthyism did was to make Americans fearful of being called un-American just because their opinions or politics were different from what either HUAC or Senator Joseph R. McCarthy said they should be. Beyond that, Americans came to fear their neighbors, fellow workers, and acquaintances because these horrid people could accuse Americans—and many were falsely accused—in order to protect themselves from being blacklisted as was the case with Elia Kazan.
As RT America has been allegedly (because it has NOT been proven) accused by the American government to "speak in the US on behalf of a foreign government"—Russia, therefore RT America must register under FARA. But the BBC "speaks in the US on behalf of a foreign government"—the United Kingdom. Then why hasn't the American government requested that the BBC register as well under NARA as RT America has done? Is it because the BBC has accepted without question the current narrative of the American mainstream media in the BBC's reporting of the news. Unlike the BBC, RT America has allowed alternative opinion to be heard by its audience rather than stringently following the faux narrative that is being disseminated by the American mainstream media.
Then there are those liberals—who want to censor RT America just because of the alternative opinions of Americans on RT America conflicted with the current narrative of the mainstream media—would argued that RT America is a tool used by the Russian government to disseminate Russian propaganda. Americans who have appeared on RT America to present their own alternative opinions—and NOT the opinions of the Russian government—will be accused by liberals to be spreading Russian propaganda without providing evidence to prove the validity of their accusations. Then this is also censorship by mob rule.
If the American government is allowed to decide what is propaganda, then the government would banned—censored—all news stories that reflexes negatively on the government. This was previously accomplished by the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that "criminalized making false statements that were critical of the federal government". In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Sedition Act of 1798 to be a violation of the First Amendment.
If the government requiring RT America to register as a foreign agent is NOT censorship, then you have NOT heard of "The Case of Milo Radulovich." Senator Joseph R. McCarthy began a witch hunt looking for Communists employed by the American government. McCarthy found one such person in Milo Radulovich, a Lieutenant in the Air Force Reserve. Radulovich became an easy target simply because his father "subscribed to several Serbian newspapers, one of which was classified as Communist by the US government". And as his sister supported liberal causes, she was declared to be a Communist sympathizer. McCarthy's entire case was based on unproven accusations that Radulovich's father and sister were Communists.
With this guilt By association in mind, Edward R. Murrow said "We believe that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, even though that iniquity be proved, and in this case it was not." Putting what Murrow said into perspective as it relates to RT America, both the government and liberals have also used the same tactic of guilt By association as did both Senator McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee by their insinuating that RT America is a Russian news organization and thus must be a puppet of the Russian government without providing any proof to support that accusation against RT America.
In 1953, Air Force regulation 35-62 stated that "A man may be regarded as a security risk if he has close and continuing associations with communists or people believed to have communist sympathies". When Lieutenant Radulovich refused to resign from the Air Force as he did nothing wrong, a special board "recommended that Radulovich be severed from the Air Force" despite the fact that this Board never once questioned the loyalty of Lieutenant Radulovich. "With the 'witch hunts' conducted by both Senator McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee affecting the military, Hollywood, government, and academia, 'The Case of Milo Radulovich' proved that the average guy can be targeted as well."
During the broadcast of "See It Now" on 9 March 1954 by CBS TV, Edward R. Murrow made the following remarks :
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men ó not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.
We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Murrow's comment are just as relevant today as it was back in 1954. More so because liberals are supposed to be the good guys.