Category Archives: Free Speech

A Victory For Free Speech

Free Speech, Individual Rights

A Federal Appeals Court has ruled that a loophole in the McCain-Feingold law allows issue advocacy ads to run during an election campaign:

A divided three-judge court ruled yesterday that ads advocating for an issue and mentioning candidates can run during an election, creating a loophole in the law that sought to control the power of big money in elections.

In a 2 to 1 ruling, the court found that the government had no compelling justification to regulate television ads such as the ones Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. broadcast in July 2004, which advocated stopping congressional filibusters against President Bush’s judicial nominees.

The ads ran when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) was running for reelection and had opposed some of Bush’s nominees. The ads made no mention of Feingold’s record, instead urging Wisconsin residents to call their senators to express their dissatisfaction.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, joined by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David B. Sentelle, agreed with Wisconsin Right to Life that ads such as theirs merely advocate a position without trying to criticize the record of a particular candidate.

Not as good as declaring the whole monstrosity that is McCain-Feingold unconstitutional, but it’s a start.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

John McCain Wants To Regulate Blogs

Free Speech, Individual Rights, Technology

Arizona Senator, and 2008 Presidential candidate, John McCain has proposed extending federal obscenity laws to require extensive reporting and regulation by social networking sites and blogs:

Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.

The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.

In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, the Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate warned that “technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography.” McCain scored 31 of 100 points on a News.com 2006 election guide scoring technology-related votes.

(…)

Internet service providers already must follow those reporting requirements. But McCain’s proposal is liable to be controversial because it levies the same regulatory scheme–and even stiffer penalties–on even individual bloggers who offer discussion areas on their Web sites.

In addition to turning every blogger and web site operator who hosts any kind of a public discussion area into, effectively, an agent of the police, McCain’s legislation would also have a significant impact on social networking sites:

The other section of McCain’s legislation targets convicted sex offenders. It would create a federal registry of “any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier” they use, and punish sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they don’t supply it.

Then, any social-networking site must take “effective measures” to remove any Web page that’s “associated” with a sex offender.

Because “social-networking site” isn’t defined, it could encompass far more than just MySpace.com, Friendster and similar sites. The list could include: Slashdot, which permits public profiles; Amazon.com, which permits author profiles and personal lists; and blogs like RedState.com that show public profiles. In addition, media companies like News.com publisher CNET Networks permit users to create profiles of favorite games, gadgets and music.

What would happen if this law is passed and upheld in Court, of course, is easy to predict. Unfettered public discussion forums would, largely, become a thing of the past as most web site operators will not want to invest either the time or the resources into policing every conversation that takes place. Debate and discussion will be limited. All of which argues quite strongly that these regulations would violate the First Amendment.

All of this is being done, of course, to “protect the children.” The problem is there’s no evidence I’m aware of that children are being victimized by people who post comments on blogs.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Teacher’s Unions: Enemies Of Free Speech

Education, Free Speech, Individual Rights

Labor unions exist to protect the interests of their members. All their members. Right ? Well, not so fast. Let’s say you happen to be a member of the teacher’s union in the State of Washington who doesn’t want your union dues used to fund political activities you don’t believe in. Well, at least according to the Washington Education Association, too darn bad:

SPOKANE, Wash.–Teachers unions are supposed to promote the financial interests of, well, teachers–but not in Washington state. Here, the Washington Education Association is fighting some 4,000 nonmember teachers who don’t want their paychecks raided each year and used for political activities that they don’t believe in. “The right of free speech is being trampled” by the union political spending, complains Scott Carlson, a business teacher in Spokane. “And that’s a right I hold very precious.”

Too bad the unions don’t. The WEA derisively refers to teachers like Mr. Carlson who want their money back not as free-speech advocates but “dissidents.” The goal is to squash these dissidents by overturning Initiative 134, a law–approved by 72% of Washington voters in 1992–that requires unions to obtain written approval from teachers before dues are spent on campaigns or candidates. Back in March, the unions got a surprising assist from the state Supreme Court, which ruled that the paycheck protection law places “too heavy” a burden on the free-speech rights of the union.

That case is now before the United States Supreme Court, and, as Stephen Moore explains in the Wall Street Journal, the stakes could not be higher:

At issue is whether workers have the right to effectively declare themselves conscientious objectors to the unions’ multimillion-dollar political war games. “All we are saying is that no one has the right to take our money and spend it on causes we don’t believe in,” insists Cindy Omlin, a recently retired speech teacher in Spokane. “If you want my money, ask for it, like private charities, political candidates and businesses do.” Ms. Omlin was one of 250 teachers who successfully sued the WEA in 2002 to get half their dues refunded after a Washington superior court found the union guilty of “intentional violations” of the paycheck protection law.

The outcome of this case should be, one would think, blindingly obvious. No organization, especially not one that you are required by law to belong to in order to hold a job (which is apparently the case with the Washington Education Association), has the right to take your money and use it to fund political causes you don’t agree with. It is, after all, your money, the product of your labor. Of course, it helps that the WEA has the state, and even the State Supreme Court on it’s side:

The Washington Supreme Court defended its ruling by arguing that the benefit to the individual teachers was trivial compared to the “heavy administrative burden” that complying with paycheck protection would impose on the union. That attitude incenses Jeff Leer, who for 10 years has been a phys ed teacher outside Seattle. In an interview, Mr. Leer fumed: “I wonder how these justices would feel if I reached into their pockets and took $200 to support causes they don’t believe in.” He told me that when he investigated the candidates that his union dues were going to support, “it was nearly 100% opposite of the way I voted. How is that fair?”

In others, the Washington Supreme Court is saying, it’s just too darn inconvienent for us to worry about your trivial little rights. What’s appalling about that is that the State Supreme Court’s decision seems to directly contradict state law on this very issue:

Washington law states unambiguously that a union may not use dues “for political purposes without the affirmative consent of the nonmembers from whom the excess fees were taken.” The Washington Supreme Court somehow twisted these words to mean that the unions can spend as they wish unless workers object and affirmatively opt out. That’s a big distinction, because the unions make it as time-consuming and cumbersome as possible to get the money back once they snatch it.

And, at least in the State of Washington, they’ve got the Courts on their side.

H/T: The QandO Blog

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Don’t Try To Sell Your Car In Glendale, Ohio

Free Speech, General, Government Regulation, Individual Rights

Chris Pagan wanted to sell his 1970 Mercury Cougar. The town of Glendale, Ohio, though, had other ideas:

GLENDALE, Ohio — The town of Glendale didn’t like the “for sale” sign Chris Pagan propped up on the 1970 Mercury Cougar in front of his house three years ago.

Glendale police threatened to cite him under an ordinance forbidding such signs on vehicles in public areas. He could have been jailed 30 days and been fined $250.

Pagan, a lawyer, took down the sign. He also filed a lawsuit in federal court.

Pagan’s case will be heard today by all 14 judges of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit previously ruled in Glendale’s favor.

“Glendale was seeking to … subject me to jail time — and they can’t do that when they’re violating the First Amendment,” Pagan said.

In an affidavit filed in the case, Glendale Police Chief Matt Fruchey said the ordinance aims “to prohibit attractions or activities which would induce people to come into the roadway,” putting them in danger. He also said the ordinance makes the village environment more pleasant.

Of course it does, Chief.

What’s at stake is actually pretty significant:

Jeff Rowes, an Institute for Justice lawyer, predicts the case’s outcome will exert national influence over freedom-of-speech issues and could redefine “commercial speech” rights for the 32 million people living in the court’s four-state territory.

“If Glendale wins, then — at least in the 6th Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee) — governments will be able to ban even the most harmless speech just because they feel like it,” Rowes said.

“If they can ban totally harmless speech on a whim, what happens when more controversial speech comes along?” Rowes said. “If we decide that putting someone in jail is the right way to deal with ordinary speech like a ‘for sale’ sign, the First Amendment is in grave jeopardy.”

Like it isn’t already ?

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Freedom of Speech And The War On Terror

Free Speech, Individual Rights, War on Terror

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke in Manchester, New Hampshire yesterday on the topic of freedom of speech. When it comes to applying freedom of speech to campaign finance laws, Gingrich made this excellent point:

MANCHESTER, N.H. –Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says First Amendment rights need to be expanded, and eliminating the McCain-Feingold law’s restrictions on campaign contributions would be a start.

Gingrich, a Republican, suggested allowing people to give any amount to any candidate as long as the donation was reported online within 24 hours.

“Just as tax lawyers always succeed in out-thinking the (Internal Revenue Service) because they stay after five and the IRS goes home, the private-sector lawyers will always out-think the (Federal Election Commission) because they stay after five and the FEC goes home,” Gingrich told about 400 people at the Nackey Scripps Loeb First Amendment Awards dinner Monday.

Newt’s absolutely right on this one. McCain-Feingold is one of the most egregious restrictions on political speech that Congress has passed in quite some time. The fact that it was upheld by the Supreme Court is even more distressing.

Where Gingrich falls apart, unfortunately, is when it comes to the issue of freedom of speech and the war on terror:

MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

“We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade,” said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP’s takeover of Congress in 1994.

I’m not quite sure what Newt means when he talks about “re-examining” freedom of speech, but it doesn’t sound good at all. In the wake of 9/11, we “re-examined” the Fourth Amendment and it brought us the Patriot Act. I hate to think what a re-examination of the First Amendment would bring us.

H/T: Hit & Run

Update 11/29/06: There has been discussion in the comments about whether the Union-Leader accurately reported what Gingrich said. A link to the speech can be found here, and here is the relevant part:

This is a serious long term war, and it will enviably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear of biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that ether before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

And, I further think that we should propose a Genève convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate

At the very least, Gingrich is theorizing that First Amendment right would be curtailed in the wake of another massive terror attack (a theory which I think is largely correct). On the other hand, though, I think it’s fair to say that he was advocating we at least look at doing this, and that’s where I have a problem.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com
1 … 39 40 41 42 43 … 47