Tag Archives: free speech

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.

Universities and “Free” Speech

Posted on by
Reply

From the Volokh Conspiracy, via The Washington Post.

In a then-latest in a long line of speech intolerance in the name of tolerance (is this what they’re teaching in these institutions of “higher” “education” these days?), ex-Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, Robert Birgeneau, chose to withdraw from giving the commencement speech at Haverford this spring (just what do these pupils think they’re commencing on receipt of their parchments of achievement?). A loud minority of pupils and putative professors objected to Birgeneau’s use of police to break up an Occupy protest while he was at Berkeley, on the odd theory that it’s somehow inappropriate to enforce laws and regulations on college campuses.

Birgeneau’s replacement speaker wasn’t shy about this PC nonsense, however.

Ex-Princeton President William Bowen had this to say on speech “correctness” during the course of his commencement address at Haverford:

I am disappointed that those who wanted to criticize Birgeneau’s handling of events at Berkeley chose to send him such an intemperate list of “demands,” said Bowen, who led Princeton from 1972 to 1988 and last year received the National Humanities Medal from President Obama. “In my view, they should have encouraged him to come and engage in a genuine discussion, not to come, tail between his legs, to respond to an indictment that a self-chosen jury had reached without hearing counter-arguments.”

And

In keeping with the views of many others in higher education, I regard this outcome [the withdrawal of Birgeneau from the commencement address] as a defeat, pure and simple, for Haverford—no victory for anyone who believes, as I think most of us do, in both openness to many points of view and mutual respect.

What he said.

Either we’re a nation whose citizens are free to speak, and where we are free to choose for ourselves to what speech we will listen, or we’re a nation whose citizens are free to speak and to hear only those messages that have been approved for us by our Betters. There is nothing in between.

Government and Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

This time in the milieu of the Internet. And it’s not good, if the FCC’s latest “rule” proposal is allowed to stand.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler went ahead with his proposal on Thursday to give his agency the power to decide whether the terms and prices of broadband Internet services are “reasonable.” That’s bad enough as political discretion, but according to dissenting Commissioner Ajit Pai, regulators from every state will also be able to get into the act.

Government, once again, is deciding that it’s better suited to determine what a proper business arrangement is than the participants in the business. Only this time, since it’s the Internet that’s at stake, and the Internet plays such an enormous role, not only in business per se, but in speech of all forms—political, business, communication of innovations, the list goes on—the FCC is plainly inserting itself into the business of government determiner of what appropriate speech is.

If this rule stands, government will be able to pass on the Internet-based “business arrangements” regarding, oh let’s say, a documentary called Hillary: The Movie. Worse, it’ll be able to do this, not overtly because it objects to the politics of the movie, but more sotto voce, under the guise of objecting to the appropriateness of the business arrangements surrounding its Internet distribution. And by allowing the States to get in on the censorship, the FCC is looking to broaden government…management…of permissible speech.

The Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed points out a myriad of other objections to this harebrained scheme of the FCC, but this will do for this post.