Tag Archives: free speech

And So It Begins

Posted on by
Reply

The crumbling of the Afghan polity is under way.

A reporter wrote a news reporting/opinion piece about the Afghan government that didn’t comport with that government’s approved view of itself. As a result,

Afghanistan’s attorney general has banned a New York Times reporter from leaving the country after he wrote a story about unnamed officials seeking to take power if the country’s presidential election deadlock persists.

The reporter’s…error?

Attorney General Basir Azizi said the story…could “create fear and confusion among the people” and that [reporter Matthew] Rosenberg will not be allowed to leave the country until it has been investigated by officials.

Of course.

On Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

This is from Justice William Douglas’ dissent in US v Autoworkers [emphasis added]. In the event, his dissent presaged Citizens United.

We deal here with a problem that is fundamental to the electoral process and to the operation of our democratic society. It is whether a union can express its views on the issues of an election and on the merits of the candidates, unrestrained and unfettered by the Congress. The principle at stake is not peculiar to unions. It is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers’ leagues, farmers’ unions, religious groups and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions. It is as important an issue as has come before the Court, for it reaches the very vitals of our system of government.

Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important—vitally important—that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.

In United States v CIO, Mr Justice Rutledge spoke of the importance of the First Amendment rights—freedom of expression and freedom of assembly—to the integrity of our elections. “The most complete exercise of those rights,” he said, “is essential to the full, fair and untrammeled operation of the electoral process. To the extent they are curtailed the electorate is deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function.” …

Some may think that one group or another should not express its views in an election because it is too powerful, because it advocates unpopular ideas, or because it has a record of lawless action. But these are not justifications for withholding First Amendment rights from any group—labor or corporate. First Amendment rights are part of the heritage of all persons and groups in this country. They are not to be dispensed or withheld merely because we or the Congress thinks the person or group is worthy or unworthy.

It would help of Progressives heeded this; the case itself dealt, after all, with a union’s right to speak.

Fat chance. Free speech isn’t for everyone.

h/t The Wall Street Journal

The Democrats Don’t Like Speech?

Posted on by
Reply

At least when it’s not been approved by them. This Constitutional Amendment passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday on a straight party line vote:

                       JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to contributions and expenditures intended

                       to affect elections.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two

3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol

4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con

5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States:

1                          “ARTICLE—

2 “SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle

3 of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity

4 of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall

5 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money

6 and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections,

7 including through setting limits on—

8          “(1) the amount of contributions to candidates

9 for nomination for election to, or for election to,

10 Federal office; and

11         “(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,

12 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

13 “SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle

14 of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity

15 of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall

16 have power to regulate the raising and spending of money

17 and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, in

18 cluding through setting limits on—

19         “(1) the amount of contributions to candidates

20 for nomination for election to, or for election to,

21 State office; and

22         “(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by,

23 in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

1 “SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be con

2 strued to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom

3 of the press.

4 “SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have

5 power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate

6 legislation.”.

Sections 1 and 2 are identical other than Sect 1 addresses Congress’ power, and Sect 2 addresses States’ power. The key phrase is this: shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on together with its applicability to limiting contributions. It’s open-ended. A party in the majority would be fully empowered by this Amendment, were it to pass, to set the limit at zero regarding candidates of the opposing party. Even were the limits found required to be applied equally to all candidates, the incumbents would have the critical advantage of already having, for instance, name recognition and the bully pulpits of their elected offices to spread their messages—advantages denied the other candidates by their inability to purchase air and newspaper time, or to stump.

This is a guaranteed incumbency amendment, and nothing else.

In Which I both Agree and Disagree

Posted on by
Reply

…with a Supreme Court decision. In Mccullen v Coakley, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that placed a mandatory 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics within which anti-abortion protests were prohibited. The purpose of the law, to allow women wishing an abortion unfettered access to the clinic, was met, but overbroadly, according to the court.

That’s the part with which I agree. If we’re going to argue as I have in the past that “free speech zones,” like those on too many college campuses, unconstitutionally restrict free speech, then so does the other side of that coin: non-free speech zones. Either we have free speech in this country, or we do not.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, displayed a sad misunderstanding of that right of free speech. In his rationale for striking Massachusetts’ law, Roberts wrote

McCullen explained that she often cannot distinguish patients from passersby outside the Boston clinic in time to initiate a conversation before they enter the buffer zone.

And [emphasis added]

As explained, because petitioners in Boston cannot readily identify patients before they enter the zone, they often cannot approach them in time to place literature near their hands….

But this ignores the other person’s (here, the woman seeking the abortion) free speech right to choose what conversation she will hear, especially when that unwanted conversation is directed at her and not, from the public square, to no one in particular (and so equally to everyone). Roberts’ thesis also ignores the intended recipient’s free speech right not to have materials pressed on her without her prior consent.

I disagree with Roberts’ rationale.

In the end, an opinion founded on bad law is itself a bad opinion, even if it reaches the right conclusion.

It’s For Your Own Good

Posted on by
Reply

…if you know what I mean.

Thailand’s General Prayuth Chan-ocha, the man in charge of his military’s overthrow of the Thai government,

has ordered dozens of outspoken activists, academics, and journalists to surrender themselves to military authorities….

The military, which is already holding most of the Cabinet ousted in a coup Thursday in secret locations, said it would keep former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and others in custody for up to a week to give them “time to think….”

In other words, to give time for Prayuth’s reeducation rehabilitation to take effect (Shinawatra was released from “custody” Monday).

One of Prayuth’s spokesmen, Colonel Weerachon Sukondhapatipak, added that

all those held have had their cellphones confiscated because “we don’t want them communicating with other people. We want them to be themselves and think on their own…,” adding that they need to “calm down and have time to think.”

Can’t have distractions interfering with their reeducation, after all.

Another of Prayuth’s spokesmen, Colonel Winthai Suvaree, is saying that Prayuth

urged every group of citizens to avoid joining the anti-coup protests because at the moment, the democratic principles cannot be executed normally.

Because the people screwed up and didn’t democratically govern themselves in accordance with the military’s approved principles or outcomes.

Later in the week, Prayuth finally spoke for himself:

I’m not here to argue with anyone. I want to bring everything out in the open and fix it.

Everyone must help me. Do not criticize, do not create new problems. It’s no use.

Indeed. He’s just had Education Minister Chaturon Chaisang arrested—in mid-news conference, yet—for the heinous crime of criticizing Prayuth’s takeover and pushing instead for a return of Thailand to civilian rule.

Because shut up. Because reeducation. Because your Betters…Know Better.