GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Remember when lefties liked free speech? (or claimed to)

by

Something in Bruce’s Twitter stream got me to notice this petition on Daily Kos, which is

…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

I don’t know when DK started the petition; probably a few years ago. But it’s still active. Now, in terms of the U.S. constitution, what caused the Citizens United decision? As Justice Kennedy wrote in 2010 for the majority:

If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.

So, the principle of Free Speech caused the decision. The First Amendment right of citizens, or associations of citizens, to engage in political speech – is what the decision expresses and defends.

If we do the math, the Daily Kos petition is effectively:

…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn free speech.

…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the First Amendment right of citizens, or associations of citizens, to engage in political speech.

Example #12,770 of leftism actually being fascism and vice versa.

UPDATE: Something more current…With approval from the National Science Foundation, Indiana University researchers spent $1 million of taxpayer money on activities to silence non-leftie voices on Twitter. Here’s another link.

Comments

  1. I struggle with this one. Free Speech must be exactly that: free. From from all but the absolute minimum of necessary restrictions. But is money really speech? Because the real result is that those with the most money get to “talk” the loudest and the most in political speech.

    Put another way, do spending limits actually limit the speech, or just the amount of it one can buy and distribute? Is a spending restriction the same thing as a content restriction?

    I honestly don’t know where I come down on those questions. Just a thought I’m sharing.

  3. The left has always wanted their narrative to be free, but anything that opposes it to be silent.

    Merry X-mass UN declares Dec 24 as start date for UN gun ban for civilians. Watch bath house Barry try to implement it in the US. That’s probably why they got rid of the senate filibuster to simple majority. It takes an entire state weeks to deal with a single Mark Fein or Chris Dohner, how do they think they can win given the possibility of turncoat gays like Brad Manning remembering their oath of enemies foreign/domestic and poisoning them?
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/19486-merry-christmas-united-nations-declares-arms-trade-treaty-to-go-into-effect-dec-24

  4. is money really speech?

    In the constitutionally-protected sense that you mean here: Yes.

    Perhaps the real issue here is property rights, including trade rights. If I want to do a political ad on my property, I should be able to. And: If you want to sell me a right to do my political ad on your property, for money that I pay you, you should be able to.

    So yeah, the people who have more property/money (AND who wish to use it for certain political ads) get to do more ads. If you object, or wish to present a different viewpoint: You still have lots of means available to you. Not limited to your forming associations with others to raise and spend your own money on ads. Remember, it isn’t just corporations who get to spend; it’s labor unions. It isn’t just churches who get to spend (on “issue” ads – not for candidates or parties of course); it’s NARAL and Planned Parenthood and neighborhood associations. The Democrats have lots of billionaires, foundations, PACs, 501c groups and whatnot. Under the constitution, all that is as it should be.

    Is a spending restriction the same thing as a content restriction?

    The effect of the spending restriction is precisely to suppress content, so – yes.

    I literally cannot remember a time when the left supported free speech.

    I’m thinking of the Bush 43 years. Lefties pretended that he wanted to squelch free speech, while they were its defenders. (In reality, lefties were pushing McCain-Feingold – the very speech restrictions that _Citizens United_ overturned – and Bush harmed free speech by signing McCain-Feingold, but that was the only way he harmed free speech and lefties wanted it.)

    I’m also thinking of certain times (mostly past) when the ACLU might do the right thing and defend speech they didn’t like, etc.

  5. I appreciate Jeff putting Citizens United in proper context. It seems to favor those with money on both the left and the right. But the little guy/gal is the one left with the “quietest” voice. The decision seems to perpetuate the, generally, two “choice” system we have on most of voting ballots. What would really be great is if we had a variety of opinions, but the more money has power in our politics, the less variety we have.

  7. The smallest minority is the individual.
    Big Gay Steve’s Big Gay Spokesmans Services is now has 2 new offerings listed in the Stupid Gays Supporting Muslims story. The radical muslim wants to behead you the moderate wants the radical to behead you.