Censorship? You be the Judge

I've been following this story at Malkin's blog, and have to admit I'm quite distraught. Surprised, not really, but distraught yes.

One of the pillars of our country has always been freedom of speech. It also applies to the press, the New York Times is living proof of that. However, I've argued before that freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

In this case, as far as I've been able to research everything the ad says is factual. The implications may not be true or factual, but that is for the viewer to decide. As it stands, the ad states that Obama has ties to Ayers and tells viewers who Ayers is. Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres.

This is very common in politics - ad that state facts and implications. What is not common is a campaign flexing legal muscle to get an ad off the air because they don't approve. And ad that is again, factual in the information it presents leaven the connections open to interpretations.

That a presidential candidate promoting Hope and Change and a New America would attempt this is embarrassing at the least frightening at worse. We'll see how these legal fight, being played under the disguise of funding irregularities, plays out.