Aborting free speech

Washington Times ^ | 1/15/11

[markomalley]

Left-wing attempts to restrict free speech aren't new. Even before the Tucson shooting, a recently defeated Ohio congressman asked government to punish a pro-life group because he didn't like their ads criticizing his voting record. His position is such an offense to freedom that even the liberal American Civil Liberties Union weighed in on behalf of pro-lifers.

The case arises from disputes over Obamacare. Steven L. Driehaus voted for the government takeover of health care as a member of the House of Representatives despite claiming to be pro-life. Influential pro-life groups - including the grassroots Susan B. Anthony List - warned about provisions in the law that could lead to government funding for abortions. When the SBA List announced plans to post billboards in Mr. Driehaus' district saying he "voted for taxpayer-funded abortion," he asked the Ohio Elections Commission to declare the message false and prohibit the advertisements. The commission complied.

[markomalley]

That is, after all, what the left does best: tyranny.

[Pontiac]

the ACLU reminded in a friend of the court brief: "The people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech and, in any event, the best answer for bad speech is more speech. ... The First Amendment exists to protect citizens' right to hold and to communicate such different beliefs. ..."

A rare instance where the ACLU comes down on the right side of a Constitutional argument.

Thanks in no small part to the efforts of the ACLU the First Amendment has come to be the protector of pornography, foul and indecent language and offensive art.

The true meaning of the First Amendment has as a consequence been lost in the noise of a disintegrating culture thanks to those using the amendment to protect things it was never intended to protect.

[Servant of the Cross]

I just read this article this a.m. Driehaus did get "his hat handed to him in the November election" and this is the 'sour grapes' of a whiny hypocrite who lied to the voters (he ran in '08 as a fiscal and social conservative) but proceeded to vote almost in lockstep with SanFranNan the past two years. Voters don't like liars Steve.

Mr. Driehaus' sour grapes is a perfect analogy to the post-Tucson rantings of these other lib 'speech-limiters'. If the ACLU opposes you, you've really stepped in it. Good riddance Stevie.