"Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity."

So says Anthony Kennedy for the 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark decision issued today striking down a major plank of the abominable 2002 campaign-finance law known as McCain-Feingold.  (Link to story here.)

I'm amazed that it took this long to strike down that monstrosity.  Though four liberals and questionable Kennedy explain a lot.

I'm also amazed that, with straight faces, can read the First Amendment (quoted here as a convenience for those who may never have - Stephen Breyer perhaps - "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech") and say that the Constitution allows Congress to make a law prohibiting television commercials advocating support of or opposition to a political candidate in an upcoming election.  Liberalism, again, explains a lot.

It is vital to your freedom and mine that the current balance of power on the Supreme Court remains until the next Republican president.  We should all be praying for the health of Chief Justice John Roberts,  and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.  And we should be praying that three years from yesterday, the remaining Justices all decide to take up golf and retire.

Freedom of Speech . . . SLU-style

In 2006, the president of Saint Louis University, Rev. Lawrence Biondi, taking heat for his school hosting "The Vagina Monologues" defended intellectual diversity . . . "Sometimes that means hosting speakers, events or plays that some may find inappropriate on a Catholic College campus.  But as soon as censorship begins at any university, where does censorship end?"

That's certainly a good question Father Biondi, and one that you might want to revisit now that SLU has canceled David Horowitz's speech on "Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights."  (Link to Kavita Kumar's story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch here.  Kumar gets credit for the Biondi quotation above too.)

"Freedom of expression must be limited."

So says Venezuela's Attorney General as Hugo Chavez seeks to clamp down on dissenting media voices.  (Link to story here.)

Thank God and our founding fathers for the First Amendment.

And be ever vigilant.

Thou shalt not speak ill of Barack Obama . . . not if you want to keep your lease

The owner of a kiosk at a North Carolina mall has learned that his lease won't be renewed because he sells "offensive" anti-liberal merchandise.  Check out the news story at this link.

Then, to support free speech, try this one.

U.S. Attorney threatens free speech on the internet

The internet is a lot of things.  It is good and bad.  It is important and frivolous.  It is the last bastion of truly free speech in a politically correct and increasingly controlled word and it is forum for fools to rant and rave.  It is a tool for legal purposes and a tool for criminal enterprise.  It is all of these things, and more.

But the internet is certainly a vibrant and necessary venue for public debate on issues.  Not only blogs but media sites like stltoday.com and the Las Vegas Review-Journal's website invite reader comments.  And everywhere I've seen, such comments can be left anonymously or under a pseudonym.  Because of that anonymity, people are free to say what they really think, without fear of reprisal from anyone else, and without disclosing their opinions to whomever might be curious . . . family, friends, employers, government, etc.  And freedom makes the debate much more relevant and interesting.

The U.S. Attorney for Nevada, however, is attaching that freedom and, consequently, attacking freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  (Link to story here.)  A federal grand jury subpoena has been issued to the Las Vegas Review-Journal seeking the real names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, genders, dates of birth and, get this, credit card numbers, and other information of people who posted comments on the newspaper's website in response to a story about an investigation underway.  The prosecutors want this information because "some comments hinted at acts of violence" toward grand jurors.

But the subpoena is not limited to seeing information about posters who "hinted" at violence.  It is, apparently, going after everyone's information. 

The newspaper is fighting the subpoena.  Good.  Its editor indicated a willingness to cooperate if "specific crimes or real threats" were presented.  Also good.  But until that point, the constitutionally protected freedom to speak anonymously must be protected.

As you might all know, this issue is personal for me.  I run this blog anonymously.  Why?  Am I afraid of letting people know what I think?  In general, the answer is a definite no.  But, on the other hand, I wouldn't want deranged liberals looking me up in the white pages and then calling me at home or showing up at my house to express their thoughts or feelings.  It is also none of my employer's business what my personal political views are.  My employer's views might be (in fact, probably are) different than mine and, frankly, I don't want to open even a potential can of worms.

Anonymity begets free speech on the internet.  It must be protected or many voices, including mine, will be silenced.

Sonia Sotomayor ruled teenage blogger's First Amendment rights

The judge picked by Barack Obama to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the judges who determined that a Connecticut High School had the right to disqualify a student from running for school government because of what she had said about school officials on her own, personal, blog.  (Link to story here.)

Sonia Sotomayor stood against the First Amendment in the matter of Avery Doninger.

Sotomayor looks to be a constitutional nightmare but her ascendency to the Supreme Court wouldn't affect the balance of power anyway, since she's replacing another liberal and, frankly, I'm not sure the anybody else Barack Obama would ever appoint would be any better.

Time to get the government out of the business of defining marriage

"Gay rights" activists and their opponents have placed and kept the issue of same-sex marriage in the forefront of the news for several years.  The latest battlefield has been California, where the state's Supreme Court first struck down a ban on the practice, then voters passed a new ban, which the Court has now upheld.  (Link to story here.)

But what is marriage anyway?  And what institutions should be allowed to determine who can and can't be married to one another - or what "marriages" must be recognized by what institutions?

Should the government, state or federal, be the decider?  (Thanks to George W. Bush for bringing that silly word into common parlance.)

No.  Backing the government as the institution to define private social order seems out of whack to me.  I know that government has assumed the role for years, centuries even.  But should government be allowed to tell churches, denominations, or religions (most of which don't recognize or allow same-sex marriage - link here for a rundown).  Again . . . no.  Government telling Catholics or Mormons or Southern Baptists or Methodists or Muslims that two men or two women are "married" doesn't seem right to me.  And it wouldn't seem right that government could tell members of the United Church of Christ or Reformist Jews that gay couples could not be wed.  To me it is a matter of religious freedom and government has no place.

But the issue does not stop there.  Gay couples don't just want to be "married."  They want the rights and privileges that extend to married couples in the law.  And that is a different issue.  It is the government's place to determine whether or not couples, gay or straight, should be given legal advantages over individuals or other groups.  Those issues could and should be addressed cooly, calmly, and individually rather than collectively in the heated debates that we've seen over same-sex marriage.

SLC goes Lone Star

Though I risk being branded a right-wing extremist by the Department of Homeland Security, I'll proudly fly the flag of Texas today.

(And, by the way, who am I kidding.  I'm sure they've already branded me.)

Senator Charles Grassley - a class act?

Rightfully outraged at AIG executive bonuses following a massive government bailout, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested that he would "feel a little bit better" if those executives would "follow the Japanese model and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things - resign or go commit suicide."  (Link to Politico story here.)

Classy, don't you think?

Now, I don't pretend to be politically correct.  I'm all for free speech and rhetoric, but Grassley's comments are vaguely racist, insensitive, and downright stupid.

3/17/09 update:  Grassley explains his statement.  Associated Press story here.

Use and misuse of an anonymous blog

I blog anonymously here at SLC.  Family and friends know who I am but I don't post my real name.  Why?  Am I afraid of my name being known?  Not really.  Am I hiding behind a pseudonym?  Maybe, sort of.  Here's the deal.  I work for a large corporation and in a capacity where some might - wrongly - associate my opinions with my employer.  I simply don't want that to happen but I do want to engage in public debate.  That, I believe, is the proper use of an anonymous blog account.

An example of improper use of an anonymous blog account is noted in these stories from the New York Post and Daily News.  Some idiot is using his (or her) blog pages to denigrate women, publish their photos, and call them names.  One victim, model Likula Cohen, has had enough and is attempting to force Google (which runs blogger.com - the service used for SLC, by the way) to identify the blogger.  She believes that she has been libeled and, in fact, she may have been.

The anonymity provided by the web is important but also dangerous.  It cannot and should not be used as a shield for publication of libelous material.  The losers who use anonymous blogs to do so should forfeit their anonymity and face the music in court.

But, these bad apples should be used as reasons to attack the freedom of anonymous bloggers - like me - to engage in legitimate public speech.  Cohen's lawyer put it well . . . "The law protects freedom of speech, including anonymous speech, but it doesn't protect defamation, and people should not think that they can defame others on the Internet or on blogs by hiding behind a screen name."

Good luck Liskula . . . but may your case's holding be limited to its facts.

Christmas decorations banned at Florida University

The battle between political correctness and free exercise of religion - particularly Christianity - has waged in the United States for years now.  And, unfortunately, political correctness has been winning many of the public battles lately.  

P.C. won its latest victory today at Florida Gulf Coast University, where the school's administration has banned Christmas decorations from all public places, including even private office doors.  (Link to story here.)

Enough of this madness.  No one has the right to be free from being irrationally offended.  And, I'm sorry, if a Christmas tree, Santa, a nativity, a wreath, or a menorah for that matter, offends you - you're irrational.

On the other hand, every American has a constitutionally protected right to freely exercise their religion.  The First Amendment clearly and concisely reads:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  

Since the religion clauses have been applied to the states and state institutions (like universities) through the Fourteenth Amendment, aren't these administrators violating the constitution by prohibiting individuals from decking the halls?  Where's the ACLU when you need it?

Censorship at Random House - Publisher of The Da Vinci Code doesn't want to offend Muslims

Random House has "postponed indefinitely" publication of The Jewel of Medina, a novel by Sherry Jones, which was due out on August 12.  According to Reuters, the book "traces the life of A'isha from her engagement to Mohammed, when she was six, until the prophet's death."

Though the author claims to have "written respectfully about Islam and Mohammed," the publisher felt that the novel "might be offensive to some in the Muslim community" and pulled it.  Random House also felt that the novel "could incite acts of violence."

Offending Muslims is verboten at Random House . . . but offending Catholics isn't.  Random House, you see, published The Da Vinci Code.  (Doubleday is the named publisher - but that's a division of Random House.)

I'm not Catholic and I don't even play one on television.  I actually enjoyed The Da Vinci Code quite a lot.  I don't really understand the offense taken either - it's just fiction everybody, not history after all - but, again, I'm not Catholic.

A large number of Catholics did find The Da Vinci Code offensive but that didn't keep and shouldn't have kept it from being published.

But the same goes here . . . even if Muslims find The Jewel of Medina offensive, that shouldn't keep it from being published.  There should be no room for such a double standard.

Shame on Random House.

America - Standing Alone on Free Speech

The International Herald Tribune, commenting on a hearing of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, today contrasted Americans' First Amendment right to free speech with the surprising lack of similar freedom in the rest of the world.  The piece specifically focused on Canada's hate speech laws as they are being applied to a Maclean's magazine article titled "The Future Belongs to Islam."  Muslim plaintiff's have sued Maclean's for subjecting them to "hatred and ridicule."  They want compensation and a published rebuttal in the magazine.

That couldn't happen in the United States of America, at least not now, thanks to the First Amendment.  This constitutional protection extends to all speech, including politically incorrect speech and especially to speech critical of public policy and not well liked by government officials.

Unfortunately for those not fortunate enough to live here, the United States seems to stand alone.  As the article points out, "Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech."

Though such bans may sound good to some on the surface, the devil is in the details and, specifically, the definitions.  Who gets to decide what "hate speech" is or is not?  That's right, the government.  Doesn't the ability to suppress speech it doesn't like by calling it hate-filled leave governments a short step from totalitarianism?  Of course.

It doesn't seem like Canadians see it this way, though, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is quoted by the IHT as saying that "Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech."  (Offensive to whom, I must ask.)  The lawyer continued, "[Canadians] don't subscribe to a marketplace of ideas.  Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat."  Thankfully so!  It is difficult to imagine a free society lasting long without a marketplace of ideas.

Mark Steyn, who wrote the Maclean's article in question, is quoted to conclude IHT's piece today:  "Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion.  The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."

Despite all of our problems, when it comes to freedom of speech at least, America remains a lonely but shining city on a hill.

I Want to Support Hulshof But . . .

In the GOP race for governor, I've been leaning toward Kenny Hulshof - mostly because I believe him to be the inevitable Republican nominee and because instead of attracting positive attention to themselves, Hulshof and his primary opponent, Sarah Steelman, have been directing negative attention to one another.  (Both Hulshof and Steelman should contrasting themselves with Jay Nixon instead of helping Nixon by intra-party bickering - but I digress.)  

I would really like to be a full-blown, 100% Hulshof supporter but today I noticed an article from Friday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch headlined "Hulshof moves to criminalize cyberbullying."  His proposal would make it a federal crime for a person to use electronic communications with the "intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress" to another person.

This may seem like a good idea on the surface.  The bill is designed to criminalize the disgusting behavior of individuals who used a fake identity to taunt 13-year-old Megan Meier to the point of suicide in 2006.  Unfortunately, it would criminalize much more than that.

What constitutes "emotional distress?"  And, for that matter what is "substantial?"  And how are we going to define "intimidation" or "harassment?"

Let me paint a picture . . . let's say a blogger points out that a candidate for public office has never voted before.  Such a post could be considered "harassment" by some.  It might even cause the candidate to become upset or stressed.  Could such emotional reactions constitute "substantial emotional distress?"  We don't really know.  And we wouldn't know until such cases were litigated.  (Oh happy day for trial lawyers.)

This bill seems to be, on the one hand, little more than an effort to pander to voters upset by the Megan Meier case.  On the other hand it is a vague law that could directly infringe upon all American's First Amendment right to free speech.

Free Speech - Not in France

Hold your liberties close America.  Some other western democracies don't allow citizens to speak their minds.  Let's take France, for example.  It is apparently a crime to make comments critical of Islamic immigrants threatening traditional French culture.  Film star Brigitte Bardot is on trial and charged with "inciting racial hatred."

Bardot is unhappy about what she terms the "Islamisation of France."  She's already been convicted and fined four times for negative comments about Islam.  This time, she's on trial for stating, "I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts."  One of those acts is the ritual slaughter of animals, which Bardot (an animal rights activist) particularly abhors.

Whether Bardot is right or wrong, nationalistic or xenophobic, doesn't really matter to this discussion.  What matters is her lack of freedom to say what she thinks.

Thankfully we still have the right to say what we think in this country.  We should stay vigilant so that we always will.

Free Speech on the Internet - Not in France

A teachers' union in France has won a court case to shut down a web-site on which students graded their teachers' performance. 

 

According to this commentary published by Ronald Sokol the French court determined that an uncensored on-line discussion of teachers was too controversial.  The court held that freedom of speech ended when it affected teaching.  Huh?!

Teachers - and anybody other people for that matter - are already protected by laws against defamation or threats.  The should not be above comment.  And good ones shouldn't be afraid of being graded by their students.  Bad teachers should be afraid - but what's wrong with telling the truth.

I understand that malice could enter into these grades and any on-line anonymous process could be tainted - but it is what it is.  Take it for that and leave it at that.

Sokal's take on the subject is concisely given, "The idea of free speech is that people should be able to express their views without constraint, even if their views are wrong. Out of the chaos and struggle of conflicting ideas, better ideas emerge."  He's absolutely right.

And that's why American's had better take their First Amendment rights seriously.  

But this is France, you say, why worry about it here.  Take a moment to revisit Avery Doninger, the Connecticut high-schooler kicked off of her student council for posting negative comments about her school's administration on-line.  What would have happened if she had commented about teachers instead of administrators.  Would the NEA have tried to shut down her blog?  Let's hope not - but we should all be vigilant in defense of our freedoms.

Making Anonymous Posting Illegal

How backward is Kentucky?  When it comes to free speech, their state legislature will have a chance to answer the question.

Representative Tim Couch (a Republican, unfortunately) has introduced a bill to make anonymous posting of anything on the internet illegal.  According to a story from Lexington's KTVQ, couch so much wants to stop on-line bullying that he's willing to take away Kentuckians rights.  

Anonymous posting allows individuals to say what they really think, without fear of what others might think of their opinion and without fear of their own personal safety.  That safety could be threatened if Couch's measure became law - since it would also require registration of the individuals address with each host website.  How many people would retreat from public debate for fear that some lunatic who might read their comments would track them down?  Keeping one person's voice silent for fear is too many.

In the short time that this blog has been running, I've had numerous anonymous posts.  In fact, most of the feedback I've gotten on what I have published has been anonymous.  Quelling that debate is not the right answer to any question.

On-line bullying might be a problem - but anybody reading an anonymous internet post should take it for what it is . . . a statement that could be made by anybody, with or without knowledge of any specific situation.  No such comments should be taken too seriously.

Kentucky legislators have a choice, they can stand up for liberty and the First Amendment or they can vote for Representative Couch's ill-conceived bill.  

Underground Free Speech in Communist Cuba - But Free Speech For Students Threatened In Connecticut

Two items concerning free speech caught my eye on the Drudge Report today.  One I viewed with hope, the other with appall.  

The hopeful story comes from Cuba via the New York Times.  In spite of the repressive Communist regime, young people are using technology to spread news and information around the island.  Apparently, they're illicitly logging on to the internet, watching foreign television on smuggled satellite dishes or even using digital cameras to record what they see first hand.  The gathered news is then passed around from one person to the next by memory stick or flash drive.  As technology leaps forward in Cuba, the government can't keep up.  The trickle of outside information into the country is turning into a flood.  One day soon, we can only hope, it will wash the Raul nee Fidel Castro regime right into the Caribbean Sea.

The appalling story comes from Connecticut via the Associated Press.  Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington prohibited a student from serving on the student council because she posted comments critical of the school's administration on her own internet blog.  Avery Doninger's comments were a tad vulgar and definitely juvenile (she is just 17) but they were made from her personal computer, in her home, and on a website unaffiliated with the school.  Apparently a judge in Connecticut believes that the First Amendment does not apply to high school students at home on their own computers and denied her request for an injunction.  The case is currently on appeal.

Isn't it sad that when free speech seems to be on the rise in Cuba, it seems to be on the decline right here at home?

Don't Let Violence Take Away Freedom

Violence interrupted democracy in Kirkwood on February 7.  Charles "Cookie" Thornton leaped from loudmouth to killer and took the lives of five innocent people.  Now, his criminal actions threaten to take a small piece of liberty from all of the rest of us.

Public officials in municipalities around the area, and probably around the country, are grappling with security in the wake of the Kirkwood killings.  As the Post-Dispatch reported today, some are wondering how to deal with their own local gadflies.  Some are installing metal detectors.  Others are posting armed guards (though the guards were the first victims in Kirkwood).  Pine Lawn, apparently, "has voted to bar anyone it deems disruptive from public meetings."  Would Pine Lawn have barred Martin Luther King, Jr., from its meetings in the 1960s?  Many southern cities would have deemed him disruptive.

While Pine Lawn's motives are understandable, that city has gone too far.

Security is important.  Let there be no doubt about that.  Public officials certainly have the right and even the duty to protect themselves and attendees at public meetings from violence.  But citizens, loud or not, with popular opinions or not, must be allowed access to government.  

The problem is that government shouldn't be allowed to decide whose voice is heard and whose voice is kept silent.  The Bill of Rights protects some of our most fundamental freedoms as Americans.  Among those rights are the right to free speech and the right to petition our government with grievances.  We must not allow Cookie Thornton's violence to chip away at those freedoms.