Tag Archives: free speech

Free Speech in Illinois

Posted on by
Reply

Particularly, free speech in Progressive-Democratic Party reigned-over Illinois. A charitable organization, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, wants to register as a charitable organization in Illinois, but it’s being blocked by the State’s Secretary of State, Alexi Giannoulias.

Giannoulias’ rationalization is that a State law, the General Not for Profit Corporation Act, bars the use of terms like “regular democrat,” “regular democratic,” “regular republican,” “democrat,” “democratic” or “republican”  in any organization’s name without the party’s prior permission. It doesn’t matter that these terms are entirely generic and not—nor being generic, can they be—trademarked or copyrighted in any way.

DIAG is being blocked from registering in Illinois because it opposes Party’s support for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions so they more closely resemble the opposite sex over those procedures’ permanent effects, especially in children. The use of “Democrats” in the organization’s name is just an excuse, and DIAG, along with Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, have sued the State and Giannoulis over the legitimacy of that part of the law.

This is the level of free speech that Party allows in Illinois: what is freely spoken is what Party says its subjects are free to speak.

So Much for Liberty

Posted on by
1

Contempt for ordinary citizens is the order of the day in the United Kingdom, which has fallen and can’t seem to get up.

[T]he [British] government is moving to allow jury trials for “indictable only” offenses such as murder and “either way” offenses with likely sentences of more than three years in prison. Judge-only “swift” courts will hear cases ranging from burglary and theft to sexual assault and stalking. Judges will also sit without a jury in fraud and financial cases deemed too complex for jurors.

This is…disappointing. It’s also a revival of the 350-year-old Bushell’s Case but with the addendum of eliminating the case’s question altogether. Bushell’s Case was a trial of a couple of government-defined religious miscreants during which the presiding judge refused to accept the jury’s acquittal verdict and jailed the ringleader, Edward Bushell, until he voted for the judge-approved verdict. That case was resolved on appeal in favor of Bushell and British commoners generally, extending as the appeal finally ruled habeas corpus to those commoners as well as the nobility.

Now the British government is moving to go beyond that presiding judge’s position and eliminate juries altogether in a vast number of cases. No juries, no verdicts that run counter to the government’s position.

This revival also is a clear expression of the contempt with which British government men and women hold their subjects: commoners are just too grindingly stupid to understand many kinds of cases, and so they must be led away so their Betters can handle them without any pesky commoner interference.

Juries? We ain’t got no juries. We don’t need no juries! We don’t have to show you any stinkin’ juries!

Free Speech vs “Free Speech”

Posted on by
Reply

California’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom pretends to favor free speech even as he attacks it and seeks to limit it. Under Newsom,

California law requires companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue that “do business” in the state—which can mean having a single employee or contractor in the state—to detail how speculative climate-related risks could affect their businesses.
Companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue will also have to report their CO2 emissions, including those from suppliers, customers, and contractors. Some 10,000 companies will have to comply with the first rule, and more than 5,000 with the second.

This is nothing but government-mandated speech, which is antithetical to speech freedom

Activist Federal judges are playing their role in this limitation [emphasis added].

A lawsuit by the US Chamber of Commerce and other business groups argues that the mandated climate disclosures violate the First Amendment by compelling business to speak on an intensely controversial subject. The state claimed in response that it is regulating business conduct, not speech—ergo, the First Amendment doesn’t apply.
Federal Judge Otis Wright in August rejected this defense, but he agreed with the state that the climate disclosures are constitutionally kosher because they implicate commercial speech, which merits a lower level of scrutiny under the First Amendment. This blurs a crucial distinction between commercial and non-commercial business speech.

This is even worse. Wright demonstrated his activist judicial bent by directly tying in our 1st Amendment and then saying it doesn’t apply to some (government disfavored) speech. Wright has directly attacked, with this position, the freedom Americans are explicitly allowed under that Amendment’s speech clause.

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….

There’s nothing in that clause that segregates speech into categories of speakers or of types of speech. No law abridging, means exactly that, neither more nor less.

At bottom, free speech is like the longstanding saw about pregnancy: either we have free speech, or we do not. There is no such thing as “a little free speech” or speech that is “somewhat free.” Most Americans understand that. It’s instructive that Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and activist judges do not. We can fix the one promptly through our elections. Fixing the other will take longer, but we can fix it, too, through our elections as we choose Congressmen and Presidents who will nominate and then confirm judges who adhere to the text of our Constitution and our statutes rather than to their personal views of “social needs.”

Useless Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Amid the hue and cry over Jimmy Kimmel’s TV show being put on hiatus over his lies about Charlie Kirk and his murderer—some saying the government shouldn’t be in the business of pressuring news outlets and others saying Kimmel got what he deserved—there is this argument, as articulated by Ben Shapiro among others:

But I do not want the FCC in the business of telling local affiliates that their licenses will be removed if they broadcast material that the FCC deems to be false. Why? Because one day the shoe will be on the other foot.

What Shapiro, et al., are eliding, though, is that the shoe has been on the other foot since at least the 2016 Presidential campaign season. That’s when The New York Times announced in a front page article that its news room would no longer attempt balanced coverage; it was so dismayed over then-Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump that its news room would pick a side and openly bias its supposedly objective news writing to favor whoever the Progressive-Democratic Party candidate might be.

Not so long later, a broadcast news outlet announced that there were not two sides to every story, and it began nakedly favoring the Left’s side.

The bias became blatant when the Progressive-Democrat-run Executive Branch began pressuring—threatening—social media outlets if they didn’t start suppressing Conservative commentary.

The bias became overt election interference when CNN participated in the circularly created Russian interference to favor Trump’s election hoax by publishing the “intelligence experts'” letter.

This then was followed by all news outlets (save The New York Post) spiking all “reporting” on the Hunter Biden laptop.

As a result of the Post breaking that story anyway, social media blocked it from posting on the social media outlets.

Then we had Progressive-Democratic Party Congressmen, of whom California’s Adam Schiff is one of the more infamous examples, overtly lying about then-President Donald Trump (R)’s being in cahoots with Russia. Schiff expanded on this with his lies about having the intelligence reports (from the same intelligence community of the letter infamy) to prove it.

I’ll elide the argument that CEOs who fold under mere pressure are unfit for their positions. That the Left and Party politicians have a long and hoary prior history of this pressure and overt action against free speech is no excuse for Republicans to do the same. Spare me, though, the foolishness that one day the shoe will be on the other foot. It already has been, for far too long.

Note: As I write this post (22 September 2025) ABC has taken the position to restore Kimmel to his show and airtime with effect 23 September 2025.

Muddled Editor “Thinking”

Posted on by
Reply

This time, by the August Ones of The Wall Street Journal‘s board of editors. They’re upset because Attorney General Pam Bondi openly decried “hate speech,” and then said that when that speech clearly crosses a line, it becomes criminally actionable. Their lede:

Is a basic understanding of the First Amendment too much to expect from the nation’s Attorney General?

What Bondi said that drew their…attention:

There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place—especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

Targeting someone with hate speech isn’t general hate speech; it’s making threats, and it’s incitement to violence, and that is illegal.

Bondi went on the next day, as…paraphrased without context by the editors:

“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.” But then she incoherently mixed in everything from “violent rhetoric,” to doxxing, to calling a SWAT team to the home of a Member of Congress.

Those all are forms of threats of violence or of actual violence. The only incoherence is in the imaginations of the editors.

And this from the editors:

The AG also didn’t recant her statement on Monday that the Justice Department might “prosecute” Office Depot or its ex-employee who refused to print a Kirk vigil poster.

Nor is there any reason to. What the editors omitted from this particular excerpt is that DoJ might prosecute on illegal discrimination grounds, not on speech grounds.

Apparently, basic reading/listening comprehension is too much to expect from opinion writers.