Tag Archives: free speech

Random Pseudo-Thoughts on Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Erin Ching ’16, of Swarthmore College, without a trace of irony:

What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.  I don’t think we should be tolerating [Christian thinker Robert George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.

Sandra Korn, ’14, of Harvard:

[T]the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me.  After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication.  Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities.

And

…why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

This is what we’re teaching at our colleges and universities?  Maybe there’s too much “academic” freedom for the students, and not enough teaching of rigorous thinking.  Which flows from too much “academic” freedom of a different sort for the professors and their failure to teach the techniques of rigorous thinking.

h/t Robby Soave of The Daily Caller

A Progressive Government’s Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Senators Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Brian Schatz (D, HI) are gathering colleagues’ signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they’re ignoring global warming.

It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes….

And

Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week.

What [the networks] are saying is, climate change is a non-important issue, it is an irrelevant issue, and yet the scientific community tells us that it is the greatest crisis facing this planet….

By God, you’ll talk about what Big Government wants you to talk about, and you’ll talk about it when we want you to.  Or you’ll rue the day….

Freedom of Speech

Posted on by
Reply

The House Ways and Means Committee voted—on party lines—to move to the full House for debate (and passage) a bill that would delay Treasury’s proposed regulations that would “limit the political activities of so-called social welfare groups.”  These regulations are targeted at 501(c)(4) groups and written in a way that will affect conservative groups more than liberal groups.

That’s not what interests me, though.  What does interest me is a Democratic Party Congressman’s remark decrying the bill.  Congressman Bill Pascrell Jr (D, NJ), who sits on the Ways and Means Committee, said,

It is about disclosure.  Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have the right to say anything you want—and also not pay any taxes.

There are a couple of things wrong in this short statement….

Actually, there is such a right, and it’s not just in the Bill of Rights, but in the Constitution as a whole.  Our Constitution is a document that explicitly limits the Federal government to a short list of permitted activities and powers with which to carry out those activities: the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8, and the powers enumerated in Articles II and III are the sum total of what the Federal government can do.  Nowhere in there is there any tying of political speech to the payment of taxes.  An American citizen has no obligation whatsoever to pay a tax to the Federal government in order to receive permission to speak publicly.

Moreover, what rights American citizens do have under this Constitution, especially in relation to the powers of the Federal government, were clearly laid out in The Federalist [emphasis added]

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects…with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….

and in the 9th and 10th articles of the Bill of Rights which Pascrell seems not to have read:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and in the 1st article of the apparently unread Bill of Rights, which says this, in part:

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

Notice that: nowhere in there is speech tied to the payment of a tax.  Quite the opposite.  Speech cannot be abridged in any way, and taxes exist primarily to fund the government’s ability to engage in its outward looking authorizations.  In particular, taxes cannot be used to regulate—to abridge—speech.

To say to an organization, “If you want excusal from paying taxes, you must engage primarily in these kinds of activities” is entirely legitimate.  To say to that same organization, however, “If you want excusal from paying taxes, you may not speak of these things which we will identify for you,” is exactly that abridgment.  This is, nakedly, a tax on speech.

Then there’s this: “It is about disclosure.”  No, Congressman, it isn’t.  The Federal government has no legitimate interest in who says what in the political arena.  The articles in The Federalist were, every one, written by Publius, even though the authors in fact were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.  Anonymity is, in fact, a major protection for a speaker against a government that might presume to object to that speech and seek to act against the speaker—by, for instance, demanding a tax payment as a condition of being allowed to speak.

A propos this whole free speech limitation that the Democrats want to impose on us is this statement with which “Publius” opened The Federalist:

It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.

This is a typical Democrat’s lack of understanding of our Constitution.

Another Federal Agency

Posted on by
Reply

…that needs to be eliminated and its work force returned to the private sector.  The Federal Election Commission believes that the 1st Amendment and inconvenient parts of the Federal Election Campaign Act don’t apply to it.

A Boston TV station [emphasis added]

had invited two congressional candidates (a Democrat and a Republican) into its studio to appear on “On the Record” in the weeks leading up to the 2012 election and formatted the joint appearance as a 30-minute debate.

Another candidate (a Libertarian) who was not invited filed a complaint alleging that the value of WCVB’s production costs and airtime constituted unlawful corporate contributions to the two candidates who were invited.  Corporate contributions to federal candidates are illegal and people who make them face stiff fines, injunctions, and can even go to prison.

The Federal Election Campaign Act, which established the FEC, regulates money in federal campaigns to protect American citizens from corrupt politicians.  It also expressly forbids the agency from regulating the press.  Congress enacted this “press exemption” to protect the profoundly important First Amendment right of the press to inform the public about campaigns and candidates without government interference.

WCVB invoked the First Amendment and the campaign act’s press exemption.  When the FEC considered the matter in November 2013, the staff recommended that the agency disregard both.

That the FEC ultimately—and officially—accepted the legitimacy of WCVB’s decision-making process for selecting those candidates simply emphasizes the arrogant mendacity of the agency.  As the WSJ so correctly notes,

A decision to approve implies the power to disapprove.

Neither are within the scope of FEC authority, and the FEC knows that.

Remember, too, that this is the same FEC that insisted that it had the authority to ban books.*  Such an agency has no place in the lives of Americans, much less in our government.

 

*This exchange involving Justice Samuel Alito and Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, arguing for the FEC in Citizens United:

Alito: Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting [the “electioneering communications” ban] to broadcast and cable and so forth?  What’s your answer to [the] point that there isn’t any constitutional difference between the distribution of this movie on video [on] demand and providing access on the Internet, providing DVDs, either through a commercial service or maybe in a public library, providing the same thing in a book?  Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?

Stewart: I think the Constitution would have permitted Congress to apply the electioneering communication[s] restrictions…to additional media as well.

Alito: That’s pretty incredible.  You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned.  …  The government’s position is that the 1st Amendment allows the banning of a book if it’s published by a corporation?

Stewart [In answer to a related follow-up question from Justice Anthony Kennedy]: [A] corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book….

Another Judge Gets One Right

Posted on by
Reply

This one seems small, but it has large implications.

It seems that a motorist in Ellisville, MO, flashed his headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them of a speed trap.  An Ellisville police officer saw that and, in keeping with the city’s policy of suppressing such warnings, promptly arrested the motorist, who then faced a $1,000 fine and points against his driver’s license toward its suspension.

During the course of the motorist’s subsequent lawsuit over this violation of his 1st Amendment right, the city recognized the error of its policy and eliminated it.

Federal Judge Henry Autrey remained unimpressed, though, as he ruled against the city and for the motorist.  In his ruling, Autrey wrote that flashing one’s headlights

sends a message to bring one’s driving in conformity with the law—whether it be by slowing down, turning on one’s own headlamps at dusk or in the rain, or proceeding with caution.

There’s not even anything controversial about that form of speech.  Autrey also wrote, on the matter of Ellisville having corrected its policy,

The chilling effect of Ellisville’s policy and custom of having its police officers pull over, detain, and cite individuals who are perceived as having communicated to oncoming traffic by flashing their headlamps and then prosecuting and imposing fines upon those individuals remains, regardless….

Indeed.  The formality of the ruling was necessary to alleviate a bit of that effect.