Tag Archives: free speech

Another Victory over Big Government

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the long and the short of it, as summarized in The Wall Street Journal:

A federal judge this week struck down a controversial set of laws allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to seek people’s records without a court’s approval, saying the strict secrecy orders demanded by the laws are not constitutional.

US District Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) ordered the government to stop sending national security letters or to stop trying to enforce gag orders related to them, but she stayed her order pending the government’s appeal.

Of course, it’ll go to the 9th Circuit, which means it will go on to the Supreme Court, so the fight isn’t over.  But this is an excellent start.

Illston’s opinion decried these violations of Americans’ individual freedom:

[The] pervasive use of nondisclosure orders…creates too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted.

She added [emphasis added]:

[T]he statute impermissibly attempts to circumscribe a court’s ability to review the necessity of nondisclosure orders.  …the NSL nondisclosure provisions significantly infringe on speech regarding controversial government powers.  …  As written, the statute expressly limits a court’s powers to modify or set aside a nondisclosure order to [certain] situations….  The statute’s intent…is incompatible with the court’s duty to searchingly test restrictions on speech.

There are two problems with these letters.  One is that they allow searches without a court’s warrant.  The FBI can use them to search for phone data and for financial and electronic records, and all the FBI agent needs is his Field Office Special Agent in Charge to say it’s all jake.  This is a clear violation of our 4th Amendment.

The other problem worsens this exponentially: the FBI can require (or could before Illston’s ruling) the recipient of the letter to keep quiet about his receipt—denying the owner of the records any opportunity to respond to the search before it happens.  This also denies two critical aspects of the 1st Amendment: that right to speak of receipt and the duty of a court to adjudicate any allegation of a 1st Amendment violation.

Illston’s ruling can be read here.

Score One for the Other Part of the 1st Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog describes a victory for religious freedom.  In a case about which I first wrote just after its inception, a gang known as Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the village of Warren, MI, for having the temerity to put up a Christmas display without permitting FFRF to put up a sign next to it announcing that religion is “myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

First, Mayor James Fouts told them to take a hike, followed by their suit:

If you requested permission to put up a sandwich board saying that there is no Santa Claus, you would be met with the same response.  Santa Claus lives in the minds and hearts of many millions of children.  The belief of God and religion lives in the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of people and is as much a part of the fabric of America, as the belief in democracy and freedom….

Your non-religion is not a recognized religion.  Please don’t hide behind the cloak of non-religion as an excuse to abuse other recognized religions.

Then a Michigan district court told these folks to take a hike.

Then the 6th Circuit told this…crowd…to take a hike.  On the matter of Warren’s alleged favoring of the religious over the secular, they had this:

That is not true even on its own terms.  All but one of the objects in the holiday display are nonreligious.  Ribbons, ornaments, reindeer, a lighted tree, wreaths, snowmen, a mailbox for Santa, elves, wrapped gift boxes, nutcrackers, poinsettias, candy canes, a “Winter Welcome” sign—all of them, all that is but the nativity scene—are secular…

A city does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause by including a creche in a holiday display that contains secular and religious symbols.

On the matter of the “Winter Welcome” greeting in particular, the 6th expanded with this [emphasis added]:

When one neighbor greets another in mid-December with “Happy Holidays,” it is the rare person who hears “Happy Holy Days.”  What was once the most religious of invocations has become one of the most faith-neutral, even secular.  One indeed can fairly wonder who has co-opted whom over time with these displays and words.  But that is a matter for another day.

On the gang’s bellyache that Fouts’ letter was itself some sort of cynical violation, the 6th had this:

These are not the words of someone trying to establish any one religion or religion in general; they are the words of someone trying to explain the common sense risks of disparaging faith-based and secular symbols, whether a creche or a Santa, alike….

It may be true that the Mayor misapprehended the Religion Clauses when he implied that atheists receive no protection from them by saying that the Foundation’s “non-religion” was “not a recognized religion.”  In this respect, the Mayor, apparently untrained as a lawyer, may not have missed his calling….  But this defense of his actions, premised on a misreading of precedent, does not transform his actions or the City’s display into an establishment.

On the gang’s crying about their free speech rights, here’s the 6th, again:

[Warren] could choose to add a Santa.  And it could choose to deny a sign saying, “There is no Santa.”  It could choose to incorporate a message about Ramadan.  And it could choose to deny a message disparaging any one religion or religion in general.  Just as Congress’s creation of a National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday of May does not compel the legislature to recognize a National Day of Non-Prayer each year, so too the City of Warren could opt to have a holiday display without a Winter Solstice sign.  Such holiday displays are quintessentially government speech….

And the Foundation, like everyone else, is free to urge the City to add or remove symbols from the display each year or to try to elect new officials to run the City—the customary answer to permissible government speech and the customary answer to policies with which citizens disagree.

FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor responded to her loss without any sense of irony:

Apparently we are a Christian nation, and cities may prefer religion over non-religion[.]

On the first, well, duh.  On the second, she needs to ask her lawyer to read the 6th‘s opinion to her.  It’s not what they said.  Her lawyer can find that opinion can be found here.

Thus we see the benefit of not taking the easy way out—the coward’s way out—and acceding to the demands of such anti-freedom fighters as these as soon as the latter threaten.

These lose—as all bullies lose—when faced with forthright and just opposition.

Facing down bullies is expensive, certainly.  However that expense pales beside the expense of meekly surrendering freedoms for the demanding.  Once you pay the Danegelt, you never get rid of the Dane.

Perfection

Posted on by
Reply

It can be costly, especially for those not directly involved.

The perfection here is in the attitude of President Barack Obama and his acolytes as demonstrated by their responses to criticism.  Obama is above reproach—perfect—and so dissent must be suppressed and inconvenient law ignored.

Some examples, indicating Obama’s straightforward belief that the only reason people don’t agree with him is because they’re easily manipulated:

Obama’s bellyache, “One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates.  If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it[.]”

(This is especially rich given the way the media have coddled Obama.)

Obama’s whine that House Speaker John Boehner wanted to reach a deal on recent fiscal issues but couldn’t in part because he was vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with the president.

(Notice that: compromising principles is an ethical thing to do….)

There are others:

Juan Williams, on a recent Fox News Sunday episode, saying in all seriousness that Obama had to make the unconstitutional appointments because he couldn’t get his appointments into office any other way.

Because when the law is inconvenient, it’s OK to disregard it.  If you’re the President.  How very Nixonian of both Williams and Obama.

And there’s

Obama’s claim that the only reason folks disagree with his gun control attack on the 2nd Amendment is because they want TV ratings and to sell more guns and ammo.

He left out the bitter clingers.

And the Progressives’ race card:

Jimmy Carter said, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.”

And [emphasis added]

It is wrong to believe Barack Obama shouldn’t be president because he’s black.  That you have other reasons along with those–even ones that rank higher–doesn’t make it excusable.  Likely those other reasons are themselves tied to Obama being black.

Yet for all his perfection, Obama’s failures make a long list:

  • Obamacare and skyrocketing premiums and other costs
  • Dodd-Frank and its suppression of business effort with regulatory costs
  • EPA attempt to regulate water as a pollutant
  • Obama’s unconstitutional appointments to NLRB, CFPB
  • NLRB’s statement that they’ll ignore the court’s ruling, because they consider it wrong
  • failure to produce a budget
  • refusal to curb spending, debt build-up

Obama may eventually suffer the consequences of the failure of his perfection.  But he’s not the only one who will suffer: he’s inflicting those consequences on the entire nation, on all of us.

The 1st Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

…and the Progressives’ war against it.  They insist that only certain speech is permissible, and they are the arbiters of what we will be allowed to say and what we will be allowed to hear.

If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.

President Barack Obama said that to The New Republic in a recent interview.  Plainly, some folks shouldn’t be allowed to talk to their Congressmen, or to influence the vote of that employee.  Nor are news organizations allowed to report on that, unless they’re saying the right sorts of things.

There’s more, as Kirsten Powers noted in the article at the above link.

[T]he White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday” out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network.

This is an extension of the attack on that inconvenient clause in that hard-to-understand Constitution that has continued since Obama tried to blacklist Fox News from press conferences in 2009.

It’s not just the Party, though.  Media Matters typifies the assault from outside the Party.  In their Media Matters 2012 memo (copies here and here) [emphasis added]:

…during a recent press conference, ABC‘s Jake Tapper asked Robert Gibbs how Fox News—”one of our sister organizations,” as he put it—is different from any other network.  His question indicates the pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club.  By legitimizing Fox News as a news organization, reporters and commentators are enabling the network to continue conducting a massive conservative political campaign under the guise of journalism.  In the process, they are permitting Fox News to dominate the national discussion by spreading smears and lies—smears and lies that become conventional wisdom.  They are also defending an organization that has nothing but contempt for journalistic standards—hence undermining their own profession and the public interest at the same time.

Disagreement can only be dishonest, and so the disagree-ers must be prevented from speaking.  Thus, Media Matters proposes “The Solution:”

…we must launch new initiatives specifically designed to push back against Fox News’ partisan tactics.

Media Matters even complains about the reach of the 1st Amendment:

Conservatives are unwilling to yield even to minimal restrictions placed upon the press and speech by our laws….

Because it’s just plain wrong to insist on individual liberty.  When that’s inconvenient to a point of view.  And not a single LiberalProgressive, as Powers notes, is sufficiently embarrassed by these activities to protest.  It isn’t Progressives who favor, in Powers’ words, “cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.

This is Progressive freedom.

More on the Racism of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Eliana Johnson, in National Review Online, had some remarks about former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s shameful “defense” of current Secretary of Defense nominee, Chuck Hagel.  She starts off by quoting Powell on Hagel’s on “insensitive” remarks about Hagel’s hated “Jewish” lobby:

“That term [“Jewish lobby”] slips out from time to time,” he told NBC‘s David Gregory [Johnson posted the entire interview at the head of her article; however, it’s now labeled “This video is private”]. “So Chuck should have said ‘Israeli lobby,’ not ‘Jewish lobby,’ and perhaps he needs to write on a blackboard a hundred times ‘It is the Israeli lobby.’

Then she notes

Powell’s bizarre defense of Hagel took an even more troubling turn as he decried the “dark vein of intolerance” in some parts of the Republican Party.  In particular, he singled out former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and former New Hampshire governor John Sununu for their racial insensitivity, charging that they “look down on minorities.”  Palin attacked the Obama administration for withholding information on the Benghazi scandal, accusing the president of doing a “shuck and jive”; “That’s a racial-era, slave term,” Powell said.  Sununu slammed the president’s first debate performance against Mitt Romney, calling Obama “lazy and detached”; “Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is ‘shiftless’ and then there’s another word that goes along with it.”

And

One might think that a modicum of self-awareness would prevent Powell from making such charges after flippantly dismissing the concerns raised by many in the Jewish and pro-Israel communities.  Don’t such remarks just—woopsy daisy!—“slip out from time to time?”  And if Powell finds the use of slave-era terminology offensive, one wonders why he has difficulty understanding that, among Jews, the imputation of dual loyalties rankles, even if “it may not mean anything to most Americans.”

Let’s leave aside Powell’s blatant hypocrisy concerning the “slipping out” of terms being minor accidents of phrasing when applied to some groups but are seriously racist when applied to his favored group.

As Powell notes, the terms he’s chosen to find offensive are ancient in their original usage (“racial era, slave”).  Languages, as a man of Powell’s evident intelligence surely knows, evolve, and American English is no different.  Today as Powell also notes, the terms don’t mean much of anything “to most Americans” beyond their actual, dictionary meaning (“lazy,” for instance, simply meaning “unwilling to work” and implying nothing at all to anyone beyond the individual being referenced).  With regard to slang phrases, Powell, as the father of a son and two daughters who were teenagers once, also surely knows slang evolves even faster than its base language (“shuck and jive,” for instance, today means nothing more than being cynically evasive “to most Americans”).

The only reason these terms have any racial overtones at all (and the same applies to the “Jewish” lobby—except I don’t see very many Hebrew-Americans being as strident about “dual loyalty” as Powell is being about his imagined slurs) is because guys like Powell actively seek to keep those overtones alive, for their personal use.  See, for example, the evolution of the colonial slur “Yankee” applied to us by those nasty 18th century Brits.

This is just another example of the Left manufacturing a race problem to mask their inability to form a substantive position in a discussion.

Note: the Gregory-Powell interview’s transcript can be read here (so far), and the video of the interview is at the same location.  Apparently, MSNBC just doesn’t want the material in the hands of those they can’t control.