Christopher Hitchens - In Defense Of Unpopular Speech

Property Rights Trump Freedom of Speech

I have seen the idea of Freedom of Speech argued so often that I think it is becoming a danger to our liberty.  I know, I just said something that was contradictory, but I have good reasons for making that statement.  Let me start out by stating that the First Amendment was targeting Congress by restricting laws they could pass and later on the Fourteenth Amendment made it part of the states, somehow.

This amendment basically stated that people are allowed to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal.  By “speech”, the founders clearly meant written words and spoken words.  By and large, they did not mean actions against the government, however that meaning has been stretched these days.

The reason that “Freedom of Speech” is more dangerous these days is because it has a broad meaning with no real limitation.  For example, making a political donation is considered “speech”.  This is utterly ridiculous as that is an action which does not involve words.  While I believe that people are free to donate however much they want to candidates, regardless of current Federal law, it is a property right and not a free speech right.  I am free to spend my money however I see fit, which is a property right and more akin to free market principles. (Full disclosure: none of my money has ever been sent to any political candidate to date.)

Basically, because we have been arguing freedom of speech in order to gain more freedom while forgetting about property rights, we have negated the crucial right in favor of what amounts to a sexier one.  If you are believer in property rights and that what you own is yours, then you should argue that way and not the other.

What about murder?  Murder is a violation of property rights (intentionally destroying a human life that you do not own) but it is not a violation of freedom of speech, at least how modern and post-modern civil libertarians define it.  You could easily argue that murder is a form of free speech after all.

So when people argue for things like pornography (Full Disclosure: I do not believe in making pornography a crime despite being a Christian) should be allowed because of freedom of speech, I respond by asking, “What are pornographers speaking out against in government?”

The High-Church Statists know all of this and recognize that property rights trump freedom of speech.  For example, the FCC is an agency that essentially manages the airwaves, which are currently the private property of the Federal government.  Yes, I know that they are referred to as “Public” airwaves, but there is no such thing as public property, only property.  The FCC currently imposes fines for indecency, which for now includes nudity and foul language.  If the private entertainment companies, such as Viacom or Clear Channel, owned those airwaves, they would be free to put whatever content they wanted in their airwaves.  But instead they are owned by the State and so we have this faux debate on foul language on the public airwaves between social conservatives and social liberals.

As far as I am concerned, your freedom of speech ends when it reaches my ears, which are my property.  It is a shame that even libertarians fall into this trap and forget about the most fundamental right is not freedom of speech, but the right to their property.

Florida Bar's Stealth Attack on the U.S. Constitution and Free Speech

You would think that The Florida Bar and its member attorneys and judges who swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution would support a free press as provided for in the First Amendment, right?

Wrong!

According to Mark A. Adams, writing for The Daily Censored, a news blog affiliated with Project Censored, “The Florida Bar has proposed a new rule to eliminate coverage of court proceedings by citizen journalists.” Outstanding investigative journalism by Adams has uncovered this proposed rule which would allow only an employee of a “traditional media outlet” or an official court reporter to bring audio or video recording equipment into a court room. Not even a laptop computer would escape this infringement of free speech.


Florida Bar vs. Free Press


h/t Liberty Pulse

Cultural religious pollution

The era of criminal speech starts.

The Right to Insult

This ruling makes sense from a fee speech, first amendment perspective, but you have to ask why those who wrote the law would go so far as to include "insults". Insult? First, you have the absolute right to insult anyone you want to, and they can insult you back, and second, it's all subjective. How many times has someone been "insulted" by what someone said, when the person saying it did not intent any insult at all.

The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a state law on Tuesday that prohibited "the making of obscene remarks or such remarks and actions as would humiliate, insult, or scare any person." The court ruled, quite rightly, that the statute was overly broad and a violation of the First Amendment. You can read the full ruling here.

The case involved an anti-gay preacher on a public sidewalk railing against the mythical evils of homosexuality. At one point three women walked by him and he told them, "Faggots, you will burn in hell." He was arrested, convicted and that conviction upheld. Now it has been reversed because the statute was struck down by the state's highest court.

SC Court Strikes Down Speech Code

Canadian Contempt for Free Speech

John Stossel talks with Ezra Levant, author of "Shakedown." Levant explains how in Canada, political correctness is a value prized above basic individual liberties.

Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights

Move to Amend

Here's a group that wants to amend the First Amendment in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in favor of free speech (paragraph below on the decision is from Wikipedia):

The majority opinion, which was delivered by Justice Kennedy...Kennedy wrote: "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." He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.

The group, Move To Amend, a "project" of something called the Campaign to Legalize Democracy (I'm against them just based on their name!) says:

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

Well, maybe that last one, depending on interpretation, has some merit.

As for money not being speech, here's what the great Glenn Greenwald has to say:

Anyone who believes that would have to say that there’s no First Amendment problem with any law that restricts the spending of money for political purposes, such as:

“It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money to criticize laws enacted by the Congress; all citizens shall still be free to express their views on such laws, provided no money is spent;” or

“It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money advocating Constitutional rights for accused terrorists; all citizens shall still be free to express their views on such matters, provided no money is spent”; or

“It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money promoting a candidate not registered with either the Democratic or Republican Party; all citizens shall still be free to advocate for such candidates, provided no money is spent.”-source

And here's Greenwald on what the Supreme Court got right.

Repeal the First Amendment!

Here's your chance, Ginx! Let's turn the USA into a Canadian style hate speech-free paradise.



video via THE BIG FEED

Chris Hallquist : The Fragility of Free Speech

So: a non-profit puts out a documentary critical of a presidential candidate. The government tries to stop it. It’s a no-brainer that what the government is doing is wrong, right?

The fragility of free speech