End the game? We haven't "ended the game" on the first amendment, which pretty much no one takes issue with. Why on earth do you think that we're going to do better with the second?
You've been missing some news, Bill. The First amendment is under assault as much as the Second is. The Fourth pretty much died under Clinton and Bush. The whole Bill of Rights will pretty much be rendered null once the progressives control the Supreme Court, and it's only a question of when. As a Progressive, a member of the "principled left", and an unrepentant Obama voter, I should think you would be up on the current administration's intentions and maneuvering.
Remember the Fairness Doctrine? It's back, in spades, under the guise of "rescuing" the journalism business by creating a state-run media via the "Drudge Tax". Dot Gov would tax news aggregators and "redistribute the wealth" to it's preferred media outlets:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking ways to "reinvent" journalism, and that's a cause for concern. According to a May 24 draft proposal, the agency thinks government should be at the center of a media overhaul. The bureaucracy sees it as a problem that the Internet has introduced a wealth of information options to consumers, forcing media companies to adapt and experiment to meet changing market needs. FTC's policy staff fears this new reality.
"There are reasons for concern that experimentation may not produce a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism," the report states. With no faith that the market will work things out for the better, government thinks it must come to the rescue.
The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, "Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses."
In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place.
The report also discusses the possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations. The money for those benefits would come from a suite of new taxes. A 5 percent tax on consumer electronic devices such as iPads, Kindles and laptops that let consumers read the news could be used to encourage people to keep reading the dead-tree version of the news. Other taxes might be levied on the radio and television spectrum, advertising and cell phones.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/ftc-floats-drudge-tax/
And if that isn't sufficient to control the free flow of information, the "Internet Kill Switch" ought to do the trick. Here, we grant the President the power to shut down the internet, or portions of it, for up to 120 days without congressional approval or oversight:
A new Senate bill, sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman, proposes to give the president the authority "to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet," according to CNET.
The authority granted to the government in the bill, known as the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), has been likened to an Internet "kill switch."
The bill would require that private companies--such as "broadband providers, search engines, or software firms," CNET explains--"immediately comply with any emergency measure or action" put in place by the Department of Homeland Security, or else face fines.
It would also see the creation of a new agency within the Department of Homeland Security, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC). Any private company reliant on "the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. 'information infrastructure'" would be "subject to command" by the NCCC, and some would be required to engage in "information sharing" with the agency, says CBS4.
Numerous groups, such as TechAmerica, have criticized the bill, warning of the "potential for absolute power" and expressing reservations about the "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/internet-kill-switch-woul_n_615923.html
Quoth Leiberman:
"Right now, China can disconnect parts of its Internet in times of war. We need to be able to do that too."
Hmmm ...