Tag Archives: free speech

A First Amendment Case

Posted on by
Reply

Oral argument on a 1st Amendment case was heard by the Supreme Court last Wednesday. The case centers on

whether or not a 1991 law that protects people from receiving unwarranted telemarketer calls is a violation of the First Amendment when applied to political organizations.

This strikes me as a no-brainer that never should have gotten out of any District court. The 1st Amendment bars the abridgment of political speech in the public square. It does not take away the right of private citizens to decide for themselves what speech they will hear from within their own, private property.

That private property is entered by telephone as surely as it is by the speaker’s physical presence, and those resident on the property have no more obligation to allow the speaker’s telephonic entry than they do the speaker’s physical entry.

Nor does the 1st Amendment create a right of a political speaker—or any other speaker, or any person in any guise—to use another person’s private property to speak, nor does it create an obligation of the property owner to allow that use.  This applies to land lines terminating in a home or private business, and it applies to a wireless telephone, or a cell phone, or any other communications device wherever its owner might happen to be at the time of the political speech effort.

The Supreme Court should so rule, and it shouldn’t take long or very many pages at all to convey the ruling.

Making the Case

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) decried journalists’ touting America’s Wuhan Virus death rates as being greater than the People’s Republic of China’s.  “Grotesque,” he tweeted about it.  And he’s being generous, I say.

Naturally, journalists’ feelings were hurt by that, and they bellyached loudly.  Michelle Goldberg, for instance:

Journalists are concentrated in cities that are being ravaged by a plague that could have been better contained with a competent president. They’re lonely and scared and reporting while homeschooling their kids. No one feels glee or delight. Some of us feel white hot rage[.]

Taking advantage of the Wuhan Virus situation to attack the President, while carefully ignoring her fellows’ attacks of racism and xenophobia for the steps he did take early on. Sure.

Laura Bassett:

This tweet [Rubio’s “grotesque” tweet] is grotesque. Delete it.

There’s that censorship sewage so favored of journalists who can’t abide others disagreeing with them or their pre-established narrative. That so many other venues also favor this implementation of censorship in no way excuses these guys—who have a grotesque way of acting as our filters, our gateways, to information.

Sam Stein:

Senator, either you have no clue what you’re talking about or you’re being a jerk. I have friends in this industry who have the virus. We have to make exceptionally challenging calls about sending reporters into hot spots or places where they could get it. Do better[.]

Crocodile tears about friends whom he’s now fashioning into weapons for another attack on the President. Some friend. And his “exceptionally challenging calls” on what to cover? It’s his and his editor’s “challenging calls” to wholly ignore areas that aren’t hotspots; to wholly ignore recovery rates; and to choose to focus, ghoulishly, on body counts.

These wonders—every single one of them—make Rubio’s case, pretty dramatically.

Scapegoating

Posted on by
Reply

…and fake apologies.

Recall that Doctor Li Wenliang, a resident of Wuhan, Hubei Province, People’s Republic of China and an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital, gave early warnings about the dangers and contagious nature of the Wuhan virus. Recall further that subsequent to his warnings, the police were sicced on him and that they threatened him if he didn’t shut the hell up. Li subsequently died of that same Wuhan virus.

Now the Communist Party of China is pretending to apologize to his family for that behavior.

The party’s top disciplinary body said the police force in Wuhan had revoked its admonishment of Dr Li Wenliang that had included a threat of arrest.
It also said a “solemn apology” had been issued to Li’s family and that two police officers, identified only by their surnames, had been issued “disciplinary punishments” for the original handling of the matter.

Punishing two cops who were caught up in the early stages of the CPC’s attacks: nothing like a couple of scapegoats to put an end to the escapade.

Sure.

An Illustration

Posted on by
Reply

A businessman in the People’s Republic of China, Ren Zhiqiang—who also is a member of the Communist Party of China—has been for some time an outspoken critic of PRC President Xi Jinping’s handling of the nation’s COVID-19 epidemic, a mishandling that allowed an early infection to blow out of control within the PRC and to become a global pandemic.

Outspoken critic: among other things, Ren wrote a widely disseminated essay that took issue with a 23 Feb speech by Xi. He wrote of a

“crisis of governance” within China’s Communist Party and blamed restrictions on freedom of speech and the press for slowing down the response to combat the novel coronavirus, thereby worsening the outbreak.

And

…after analyzing the President’s [Xi’s] speech he “saw not an emperor standing there exhibiting his ‘new clothes,’ but a clown stripped naked who insisted on continuing being emperor[.]”

Then Ren posted on Weibo

When does the people’s government turn into the party’s government? … Don’t waste taxpayers’ money on things that do not provide them with services.

Then his post was deleted, his Weibo account blocked. Ren also has been put on “probation” from the CPC.

And now he’s gone missing, making his point beautifully.

Progressive-Democrats’ Tuesday Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Some are calling it rowdy; others say raucous.  There’s this more concrete description, too, from Tony Katz:

Everyone else is talking to each other, yelling at each other, yelling at the moderators, yelling at the guy in the rafters….

And talking over each other, interrupting each other, trying to drown out each other. Recall the 2015-2016 Republican primary debates—they were rowdy, often rude, as participants occasionally interrupted or tried to talk over each other.  Tuesday’s Progressive-Democrat debate was nothing but a constant rolling drumbeat of that.

I have a different take on that debate from “some,” “others,” and Katz.

This debate was a clear and present demonstration of Progressive-Democrats’ view of free speech.  Their interruptions and talkings-over were not occasional, nor were they done in the heat of the moment, for all the zeal of their arguments.

No, their interruptions and talkings-over were demonstrative of their attitude toward the speech of anyone who disagrees with them.  What any particular Progressive-Democrat decides he has to say is the only thing worth hearing.  What others have to say—are already saying—is just too trivial, too unimportant to waste time on; the new speaker will just start talking, and those others should just shut up.

It’s of a piece with one of them insisting that the others should drop out of the primaries altogether and get out of his way.

Tuesday’s verbal melee also was demonstrative of their views of us in the audience and in TV viewer-land.  Progressive-Democrats will tell us what we should hear; they will tell us what we will be permitted to hear. We’re wholly unfit to decide that for ourselves.

And that’s what they’ll inflict on our free speech rights if they gain the White House and the Senate and hold the House. Freedom’s just another word for “Shut up; I’m talking.”