A Second Hand Conjecture

There’s a certain problem in that the folks who protest most vociferously about the Bush administration’s violations of free speech rights, also tend to support the direct government regulation of political speech. A disturbing poll suggests they may have the wind at their back, with 47% (a plurality) supporting federal regulation of political content on television and radio, with 31% (a minority), supporting the same for blogs. Needless to say, this is an abhorrent finding.

No Comments »

Robert Ariail / The State (Columbia, S.C.) (July 18, 2008)

No Comments »

First they came for the Press,
and I didn’t speak out,
because the press didn’t speak for me.
Then they came for television,
and I didn’t speak out,
I was tired of watching their bias anyway.
Then they came for talk radio,
and I failed to act,
so now the right is muzzled.
Then they came for my blog…

Could it happen, I don’t put it outside the realm of what is possible.

Why are the Democrats against free speech? Why do they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Why are the stalling on an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act?

And the big question, why aren’t conservatives, republicans, and libertarians up in arms over this and pressuring Congress to act.

Heard about this issue again, the other day when Mike Pence was on Hannity’s radio show. Why is it that the Democrats aren’t even discussing this issue? I can think of two reasons, they’re stalling in the hopes that they’ll have Obama to rubberstamp any old thing they pass in Congress. And they’re not talking about it so they don’t anger their base, or rile up the right. Last thing they’d want to do is get the right active again this close to an important election.

Free speech isn’t always fair, that’s why the market provides choices. If a station is forced to provide a “balanced” view of every issue, we will quickly find less and less views on the air. Assuming the stations can survive the legal battle the left brings to them to try and get those “opposing” views on the air. And, should Obama be elected President, what’s to prevent the Democrats from also going after blogs, and other websites, and making sure their version of “balance” reigns supreme.

Congressman Pence’s statement announcing this effort:

“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest that the government should be in the business of rationing free speech. During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty.

“Sadly, some of the most powerful elected officials in America have said that Congress should bring back this outright regulation of the American political debate. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator John Kerry have openly advocated for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Meanwhile, the top Democratic leadership of the House united last summer during consideration of the Financial Services Appropriations bill to oppose my amendment enacting a one-year moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine. But that amendment passed.

“When 309 Members voted in support of the Pence Amendment to ban the Fairness Doctrine for just one year, they demonstrated the broad, bipartisan support that exists in the House for ending the specter of the Fairness Doctrine once and for all.”

23 more signatures are needed to get this on the docket to even be discussed. I think one thing every conservative, republican and libertarian blog should be doing right now is promoting this, and hounding people on this list. Contact your states representatives, and let them know your views on this.

Surely this is something everyone can get behind.

We’ve posted about this issue before, and it’s time to act.

Cross posted at The Next Right

Previous Posts:

01/16/07 Free Speech/Grassroots Lobbying Under Threat

04/30/07 The Return of “Fairness” to the Media

05/15/07 The “Fairness Doctrine” looms: Updated with a statement from Senator McConnell

10/05/07 Left Wing Attacks on Right Wing Punditry

10/08/07 Muzzling the Right

No Comments »

Richard Warman is suing him and many other Canadian bloggers. Read all about it.

4 Comments »

Americans spend billions of dollars on clothing, cosmetics, housing, automobiles, vacations, restaurant dining, and so forth.  Why, then, are so many bothered if people wish to contribute financially to political speech?

Of all our rights, one of the most precious is the ability to communicate our views about political philosophy and government.  Insuring that others know of what we think and believe sometimes takes money – and a lot of it.  Assuming that we, the people, know the source of spending in political speech, why should it be fettered?

Bradley Smith and Steve Simpson make the case that we should keep our political speech free.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the government cannot limit what an individual spends to promote her political views, even if she tells people how to vote. It is common sense that groups of individuals should have the same rights. No one should have to sacrifice the First Amendment right to associate in order to exercise the First Amendment right to speak.

Imposing limits on groups such as SpeechNow.org ends up hurting the very people whom backers of campaign finance regulation always claim they’re trying to help — people of average means who must pool their resources to be heard — while leaving the field to the very wealthy to spend what they please.

Those are among the claims SpeechNow.org and its members made in a lawsuit filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It challenges the constitutionality of requiring independent groups of citizens to register and organize as political committees. For the first time, federal courts will be asked to decide whether independent political speech by groups of individual American citizens has the full protection of the First Amendment.

Would a victory for SpeechNow.org allow groups of citizens to spend unlimited funds to influence the outcome of elections? Yes. And that is exactly why SpeechNow.org should prevail.

The First Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to urge political change, and elections present an ideal opportunity to affect policy by affecting the political futures of those who make it. That requires telling voters how they should vote.

A victory for SpeechNow.org would bring federal campaign finance laws into line with the constitutional principles of free speech and association, and bring them closer to the First Amendment that most Americans already believe we have.

No Comments »

I don’t know if the eccentric Sam Zell can turn around Tribune, but he is always entertaining:

From: Talk to Sam Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:03 AM Subject: Censorship, the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate

Everyone,
I learned on the first leg of our tour of Tribune’s business units that some of them were filtering Internet content. I do not see how a member of the Fourth Estate, dedicated to protecting the First Amendment, can censor what its own employees and partners can see. I have instructed that all content filters be removed. You are now exposed to the dangers of You Tube and Facebook. Please use your best judgment.

Let’s focus on what is important, and go for greatness.
Sam

Hat tip: Instapundit

No Comments »

Following up on my first post here on A Secondhand Conjecture, I’m happy to say that the troubles T. Hayden Barnes had seem to have come to a happy conclusion. The student, who was once a “clear and present danger” is now not so much, and has been allowed to return to his classes. All credit goes to F.I.R.E. and the attorney they directed the student to.

“I would be remiss if I didn’t chalk this one up to professional representation,” said William Creeley, a senior program officer at FIRE. “I think when it was just Hayden presenting his case to the Board of Regents … the board had absolutely no incentive to take him seriously and really evaluate the case on the merits. When lawyers are involved and some media attention is garnered,” he said, it becomes a “different equation.”

(H/T insta)

No Comments »

A sophomore at Valdosta State University was expelled after criticizing his university’s plan to build two new parking garages with student fees.

In a letter apparently slipped under his dorm room door, Ronald Zaccari, the university’s president, wrote that he “present[ed] a clear and present danger to this campus” and referred to the “attached threatening document,” a printout of an image from an album on Barnes’s Facebook profile. The collage featured a picture of a parking garage, a photo of Zaccari, a bulldozer, the words “No Blood for Oil” and the title “S.A.V.E.-Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage,” a reference to a campus environmental group and Barnes’s contention that the president sought to make the structures part of his legacy at the university.

Cited as additional evidence was “a link he posted to his Facebook profile whose accompanying graphic read: “Shoot it. Upload it. Get famous. Project Spotlight is searching for the next big thing. Are you it?”” Which seems obvious to anyone I should think to be referring to filming, and not guns.

Now it seems obvious that the university overreacted here, however, were they even justified at all? Can calling the garage the “Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage” be considered an underhanded threat? Buildings are named for living people all the time, (just ask Robert Byrd), but I think the Memorial part is always used posthumously. Rather than investigate further, the university decided to simply expel the troublesome student. Couple that with their seemingly illiterate reading of the other “evidence”, and it seems obvious that the zero tolerance policies have struck again.

1 Comment »