The Death of Free Speech

I can't believe nobody has commented on this yet. I'll do my best.

First the background.

Rooting out corruption, or even the appearance of it, justifies limitations on the free speech and free spending of contributors, candidates and political parties, the court said in a 5-4 decision.

And this.

One of the more disturbing provisions of the BCRA for First Amendment advocates was the prohibition on broadcasting so-called "issue ads" within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. Plaintiffs argued that the issue ads differ from "express advocacy" ads that clearly identify a candidate for federal office, and therefore speakers had "an inviolable First Amendment right" to engage in such speech.

In short: the First Amendment exists to protect bad, stupid, and talentless, art and pornography, but not political speech. Politicians are claiming that the money of American citizens is corrupting them, and therefore they are limiting our right to advocacy. The free exchange of ideas is essential in a democracy if it is to be a democracy. Both parties are to blame for this travesty, and now that the precident exists to limit rights to avoid even the appearance of corruption there is little telling where this will end.

I was pretty amazed that this wasn''t struck down.

That is disturbing.

I agree that something needs to be done to reign in all the misleading crap that corporations, special interests, and politicians do/use/spend to get into office, but limiting the freedom of speech for specific entities isn''t the way to go about it.

Sadly, I don''t have any better suggestions, but I would think that this wouldn''t have been approved.

""Rooting out corruption, or even the appearance of it, justifies limitations on the free speech and free spending of contributors, candidates and political parties, the court said in a 5-4 decision.""

What about rooting out instigation of violence of Haitians, or the appearance thereof? Are videogames soon to be banned? Welcome to the world of the liberals. That Sandra O'' Conner has got to go.

As I say in another post, we have constitutional protection of gay sex but not political speech. I''m sure most people would prefer the sex to the political speech which says a lot of this country.

Don''t worry, a couple more conversatives on the bench and we''ll fix this up. Obviously, Sandra is trying to make a name for herself in her last days.

When Supreme Court justices are openly admitting that they are considering foreign laws to interpret our constitution, that just screams term limits. Keep it up and these guys and gals will write themselves out of a job.

We had lost constitutional protection of political speech
before this - Bush''s folks put people who protest his
appearances in controlled ""Free Speech Zones"". Why
would it surprise you that he signed this bill into law?

When access can be bought and ""free speech"" means
protesting in a fenced-in enclosure while being filmed by
the Secret Service, nowhere near the event, there''s a lot
more wrong than a weird Supreme Court decision. We''ve
got a lot to fix, and this is just one more issue that shows
how far we''ve moved away from traditional conservatism.

More money should not equal more access, but that''s a
pipe dream, I suppose. The important point here is that there
are already more serious problems with the First Amendment
in the current administration than this.

Touche''

I don''t see any similarity Robear. These people would only be happy shrieking over the top of the President''s speeches. Chaotic screaming and professional heckling isn''t conducive to the free exchange of ideas. Just because I have a right to speak doesn''t mean I can barge into a press conference and demand to debate or shout down some public figure on the spot. Putting in rules so that one person talks at a time just isn''t the same as saying ""you aren''t allowed to speak for this 1 to 2 month window"".

This is just a revised opinion from Buckley v. Valeo.
In that case the court ruled that money is speech, in this case they ruled that money isn''t speech.

It''s all rather pointless though; Presidential candidates who are supported by a major party can opt for federal financing of their campaign. If federal financing is accepted, the candidate can''t spend any of the money they raise on the actual campaign. When candidates raise money for Presidential campaigns, they are raising money to be spent on the primary and expenses such as travel. Most, if not all, candidates in recent history have accepted federal financing of their campaigns, and therefore agreed not to spend money they raise on the actual Presidential race. In other words, regardless of how much money a candidate raises, they will not be able to afford more TV time than any other candidate.

I''m pretty sure Bush opted out of public financing in 2000, and he certainly is going to this year. Dean just opted out of public financing for the primaries and I assume this will continue should he make it to the general election.

The law of course doesn''t really stop political speech - it just means that you will get only one side or another, depending on where you get your news.

Bush almost opted out for 2000, but decided not to because it would have likely caused a huge media circus.
While Bush may opt out this year, I doubt Dean will. With the way things are going now, Bush would probably win an election if it were held tomorrow.

So because there are some loopholes there is no problem? Goody, I''m so relieved.

If you make it against the law for political parties to collect a certain amount of money, you''ll soon find that the money is going to groups other than the parties. Tell special interests that they cannot express and opinion without being a news source, and they will start buying up newspapers and TV stations (like the NRA is currently doing).

Ideas will find a way to compete in the marketplace.

Ideas will find a way to compete in the marketplace.

I completely agree. Ideas will find a way.

Doing something stupid, like this decision, is probably more hurtful to a fair and balanced (I hate that phrase.) system than simply allowing anyone to donate any amount of money to whomever or whatever they choose.

Sorry to sound so confusing, but the idea of money not being speech is a flawed one that applies to more than just politics.

Whenever you buy a product, you are saying that the product is a good one or is a needed one. The same goes for political donations, money is simply the easiest way for non-politicians to say they support specific ideas or people. If money is going to be banned as speech in political contests, we may as well ban people from volunteering for their chosen campaigns. They are essentially the same thing, a way to participate and support the political process.

I on the other hand find the idea of money being speech being an extremely flawed one. Your wallet may be your voting slip in the marketplace but that doesn''t mean the same is appliciable in politics. Well it *is*, obviously, but it''s not even remotely desirable.

I don''t see any similarity Robear. These people would only be happy shrieking over the top of the President''s speeches. Chaotic screaming and professional heckling isn''t conducive to the free exchange of ideas. Just because I have a right to speak doesn''t mean I can barge into a press conference and demand to debate or shout down some public figure on the spot. Putting in rules so that one person talks at a time just isn''t the same as saying ""you aren''t allowed to speak for this 1 to 2 month window"".

Let me point out that professional heckling is what was used
against Clinton at many of his speeches. Also, a speech to
the public is not a ""press conference"". And I hope you are not
suggesting to limit free speech in political situations, when
this right was specifically set up to protect *political* speech?
Lastly, I''m not aware that limiting free speech for a day is
better than limiting it for several months. Where is it limited
in that fashion, anyway?

We are not talking people who are simply trying to
drown out a speech. This also applies to people simply
standing silently along a motorcade route, or by an
entrance, holding signs physically identical to those of
Bush supporters, but with a different message. Supporters
get to stand near the cameras and maybe shake hands;
protesters get held by local police and Secret Service.

I was not aware that free speech was limited to the times
and areas distant from political events...You sure you don''t
want to rethink your position?

(BTW, the use of the ""all protesters are either professionals
or screamers"" is a pretty cheap rhetorical straw man.) I''m
raising a serious point here; if you want to respond to it,
at least show a little respect.)

Again...how do you justify Bush''s unique use of the ""Free
Speech Zone"" to limit the activities of protesters in his
vicinity, when presumably the Constitution does not limit
the exercise of free speech at political events?

I was not aware that free speech was limited to the times
and areas distant from political events...You sure you don''t
want to rethink your position?

If the President wants to have events open to the general public, then protesters may show up and make themselves seen. They do not, even then, have the right to try to shout down the President, as tht infringes uponhisfirst Amendment rights.

how do you justify Bush''s unique use of the ""Free
Speech Zone"" to limit the activities of protesters in his
vicinity, when presumably the Constitution does not limit
the exercise of free speech at political events?

Just as you need a permit for a parade, the same is true of a protest. Freedom of speech and assemby aren''t absolute. I can''t disturb the peace, trespass, risk the safety of myself or the public, or otherwise infringe on others rights.

If the President wants to have events open to the general public, then protesters may show up and make themselves seen. They do not, even then, have the right to try to shout down the President, as tht infringes upon his first Amendment rights.

I agree that any protesters looking to disrupt an event by trying to prevent the free speech of the attendees should be dealt with by removal or arrest. Even to the point of blacklisting them from protesting at future events due to their past practices. However, securing the president from seeing a protesters sign is beyond reason. There is no need to allow them into the event, but banishing them from view outside the event is overly restrictive of a citizen''s free speech.

""The free speech enclosures are only for those who disagree with the administration''s current policies. Those citizens who carry pro-Bush signs are allowed to line the street where the president''s motorcade passes.
Members of the Secret Service or local law enforcement officers under orders of the Secret Service demand protesters move into a free speech area.
Brett Bursey, of South Carolina, attended a speech given by the president at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport. He was standing among thousands of other citizens. Bursey held up a sign stating: ""No more war for oil.""
Bursey did not pose a threat to the president, nor was he located in an area restricted to official personnel. Bursey wasn''t blocking a corridor the Secret Service needed to keep clear for security reasons. He was standing among citizens who were enthusiastically greeting Bush. Bursey, however, was the only one holding an anti-Bush sign.
He was ordered to put down his sign or move to a designated protest site more than half a mile away, outside the sight and hearing of the president. Bursey refused. He was then arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police.""
Charles Levendosky
Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune

Color me cynical, but free speech is one of the issues where people on both sides of the political spectrum often look like complete hypocrites to me. Supposed conservatives are ready to throw out local control for things like constitutional amendments on flag burning, and supposed liberals are ready to limit the very civil liberties that are supposed to be paramount to them.

Bah.

Let me point out that professional heckling is what was used
against Clinton at many of his speeches.

I don''t like any protesters, but thank you for assuming my hypocrisy.

I''m not aware that limiting free speech for a day is
better than limiting it for several months. Where is it limited
in that fashion, anyway?

Please read my pull quotes.

One of the more disturbing provisions of the BCRA for First Amendment advocates was the prohibition on broadcasting so-called "issue ads" within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary.

How free is free speech if its nothing more than the parroting of somebody else''s slogan?

Quote:

Let me point out that professional heckling is what was used
against Clinton at many of his speeches.

I don''t like any protesters, but thank you for assuming my hypocrisy.

Well, then your examples, which assume that protesters are
not quiet or unobtrusive, make more sense. I didn''t assume
your hypocrisy, I saw you were exaggerating the
disruption of protests, and assumed that you supported
this when done against, say, Clinton, but not Bush. I think
of that as more partisanship than hypocrisy.

Of course I know that is incorrect now, and I apologize for
the mistake. I understand that you don''t like any protesting
against any candidates, despite it''s being protected speech.

The Pull quote is good. I don''t favor that; I don''t favor the
bill or the decision. However, I also don''t favor ignoring the
other aspects of the changes in the First Amendment rights
put in place by Mr. Bush. That''s all I meant. I happen to think
that arrest for peaceable, legal protest is more severe than
limiting the spending of unregulated, unaccountable money
on attack ads, in many cases later found to be illegal. So
there are perhaps more serious First Amendment issues
already in play, and this just adds to them.

Not that I believe this fixes campaign finance, or even
improves it.

For those arguing that money corrupts, I think this is a separate issue. Limiting the size of campaign donations is one things. Saying that I cannot run an ad - whether it costs $1000 or $1,000,000 - violates the first amendment.

Thomas Jefferson said about allowing the Court to hold a monopoly on the interpretation of the Constitution:

""... the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.""

Jefferson''s thinking was flawed. Even though the court has the power of judicial review, they are still the weakest branch of government.

Look at it this way:
The Legislative branch has the power to make constitutional amendments and can limit the type of cases that the court can here. If the Legislature doesn''t want the court to hear finance cases, all they have to do is pass a law preventing them from hearing said cases. Also, if a law that the Legislature really likes is declared unconstitutional, they can re-pass the law with slightly different wording.

The executive controls how laws are enforced. If the Supreme Court makes school prayer illegal, it''s up to the executive to make sure that the no prayer law is enforced. This is why there is still school prayer in Texas and many other states. School prayer isn''t pissing anyone down here off, therefore it stays.

The Supreme Court ruled on Nixon v. US a year before they released their decision. They waited to release the decision until Nixon was facing impeachment because if they didn''t wait until they had the support of the Legislative branch, Nixon could have told the court to pry the tapes from his cold dead hands.

Basically, the court can declare laws unconstitutional all day long, but the Executive has to enforce their decisions and the Legislature can work around them.