Posted on 07/04/2007 7:21:25 PM PDT by neverdem
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -- The First Amendment
WASHINGTON -- The Fourth of July is an apt moment to reflect upon one of the great underreported stories of our time: the rise of regulated speech. Glance at the First Amendment, but do not think it still applies. Large bodies of political speech are now governed by laws, agency regulations, court decisions and lawyerly interpretations. Speech has become un-free.
This does not mean that we don't have vigorous debate or that most points of view aren't represented. But in and around elections, what can be said, by whom and under what circumstances, is now a tangled web of legal qualifications -- all justified as campaign finance "reform."
As proof, consider the Supreme Court's recent decision in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. Don't try to understand it; you won't. That's the point. What's permissible or impermissible speech is now murky. Plain political speech has mushroomed into many subcategories --"issue speech," "electioneering communications," "express advocacy" and "non-express advocacy," among others. Different legal standards apply.
It's absurd to treat "issue speech" (broadly: trying to influence a governmental outcome) as different from "election speech" (broadly: trying to influence a campaign outcome). In democracies, people and groups express their views on issues by trying to elect leaders who agree. But campaign finance law insists on this distinction because without it, curbing campaign contributions would be impossible as a practical matter.
In 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life began running ads urging the state's two senators to oppose a filibuster involving President...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
When it comes to free speech you have to practice it to defend it. Say what you want any time you want. They can’t jail us all.
I used to think Liberals were the biggest threat to free speech. But I’ve met many conservatives right here on Free Republic who seem equally threatening to the 1st Amendment.
Sigh.
They may call themselves onservatives, but they aren’t. The same could be said for many elected GOPers.
The same could be said for many elected GOPers.
:::::
This is a far-reaching issue, in that, the fight to protect the First (free speech) is also the fight to save our Constiutional Republic. There are a number of forces now, many visible and blatant, others very covert and hidden, that would benefit greatly from various elements in our society NOT HAVING THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. These are people and groups that do NOT have the interests of the nation and its people as an agenda. They have their own agenda with America and what it looks like.
Buyer beware. There are going to be more attacks on the First just like McCain-Feingold. Watch out for the pol that uses the word “FAIR”...an anti-Constitutional weasel word that will take your rights away. Now is the best time for all American citizens to watch, listen and participate in your government. It is very critical that we all do.
What is to stop them???..
Evidently NO THING.. and No Body..
Good related article. In case you missed it.
Supreme Speech - Talking sense.
National Review Online ^ | June 29, 2007 | Jonah Goldberg
Posted on 06/29/2007 6:18:17 PM PDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858616/posts
Do you believe in term limits for Congress?
Despite a recent House vote against it, talk radio is still being threatened by the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. With the near evisceration of McCain - Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act by the Supreme Court and the failure of the comprehensive "Shamnesty" in the Senate, the neoCOMs will be pushing harder for the Fairness Doctrine. Call talk radio. Use that as an opening to push for a Constitutional Amendment to give Congress term limits.
Guess who posted it? 8^)
I didn’t even notice who posted it. I was doing some catchup today on Nation Review Online. I liked Goldberg’s most recent article and (busy summer) decided to check his archive. I found that “Supreme Speech” article and liked it so much that I thought I’d post it here at FR. So I searched FR to see if someone had already posted it and found that someone did. So I moved on. Then I saw your most recent article and linked your older article to it without ever looking at who posted it. What are the odds.
Use that as an opening to push for a Constitutional Amendment to give Congress term limits.
:::::
I agree fully, but who is it that has to approve Constitutional Amendments for ratification by the states?? Yes, the very professional pols that we want to limit terms of!!!
Catch 22.
Ping me if you want whenever you have anything dealing with the topic of free speech.
"These cases are about political speech. The importance of the cases to speech and debate on public policy issues is reflected in the number of diverse organizations that have joined in supporting WRTL before this Court: the Ameri-can Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Focus on the Family, the Coalition of Public Charities, the Cato Institute, and many others. Yet, as is often the case in this Court’s First Amendment opinions, we have gotten this far in the analysis without quoting the Amendment itself: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The
—————— 10The interest recognized in Austin stems from a concern that “ ‘[t]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation . . . are not anindication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.’ ” Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 659 (1990) (alteration in original). Some of WRTL’s amici contend that this interest is not implicated here because of WRTL’s status as a nonprofitadvocacy organization. They assert that “[s]peech by nonprofit advocacy groups on behalf of their members does not ‘corrupt’ candidates or ‘distort’ the political marketplace,” and that “[n]onprofit advocacy groups funded by individuals are readily distinguished from for-profit corporations funded by general treasuries.” Brief for Family Research Council et al. as Amici Curiae 3, 4. Cf. MCFL, 479 U. S., at 264. We do not pass on this argument in this as-applied challenge because WRTL’sfunds for its ads were not derived solely from individual contributions.See Brief for Appellant FEC 11.
Opinion of the Court
29
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.
Framers’ actual words put these cases in proper perspec-tive. Our jurisprudence over the past 216 years has re-jected an absolutist interpretation of those words, but when it comes to drawing difficult lines in the area of purepolitical speech—between what is protected and what the Government may ban—it is worth recalling the languagewe are applying. McConnell held that express advocacy of a candidate or his opponent by a corporation shortly before an election may be prohibited, along with the functional equivalent of such express advocacy. We have no occasion to revisit that determination today. But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech,not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that.
The judgment of the United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia is affirmed.
It is so ordered."
Sorry for the paste formatting. It didn’t translate all that well.
I believe in Freedom of speech as it was originally thought. Never was it intended to allow the ugly perverted crap that waltzes around with the flag dragging behind. I support free political expression but I draw the line at enemy propaganda that places our soldiers and our country at risk. Not all speech is created equal.
That said I do believe the McCain Feingold bill is dangerous. Why anyone would want to limit the ability of political groups to advertise their position? The media quickly allows the candidate to offer redress. Just because one does not have a good come back (like Kerry) because the advertisements are accurate does not make them unfair and who said politics should be fair? Are these individuals leaders or preschool kids upset about not getting the same size cookies?
Seeing government on a continuum between liberty and authoritarianism rather than from liberal to conservative, is eye opening, and shows how the ongoing destruction of our Republic operates. One party erodes social freedoms while the other ratchets up restrictions on economic freedom. Between the two, the voter picks his poison but make no mistake, it’s poison.
Good article. Thanks for posting.
IMHO, term limits for the pols is fairly popular. Ask these pols what they think about term limits as they campaign for office. Get them on the record.Then we have to hold their feet to the fire. It needs to be a prolonged campaign for Congressional term limits over years.
Thanks for the text.
The First Amendment*
*-void where prohibited.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.