FunctionalAmbivalent

With This Keen Understanding of the First Amendment and Free Markets, Here's One Republican Who Could Well Be a Democrat

Idiot Arizona legislators of both parties teamed up to unanimously pass a law banning a particular anti-war t-shirt. The t-shirt lists the names of Iraq War dead in teeny, tiny type, along with big, bold type announcing:

Bush Lied/They Died

Asked about the free speech implications of state legislators deciding which protest t-tshirts can be sold and which can't, a Republican backer of the bill -- Representative Jonathon Patton -- explained that the First Amendment didn't apply in this case. According to Capitol Media Services :

He said because (the t-shirt manufacturer) is selling his shirts for a profit means it is not constitutionally protected political speech.

Patton is, obviously, too stupid to walk the streets alone, let alone legislate. Just about every communication in the United States is for profit, and just about every communication in the United States is Constitutionally protected. Profitability has nothing to do with free speech, and you'd think a free market Republican would understand that.

Court Limits Politicians' Power to Limit Complaints About Politicians

The decision was split, the logic of the various justices in the majority not altogether altogether, but the result is good: Campaign finance reform -- an affront to the First Amendment that Congress should never have passed and the President should never have signed -- took a tough hit from the Supreme Court today.

The Court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

One of the most egregious aspects of McCain-Feingold is its provision that political speech be most regulated in the weeks before an election. That is, when the speech is most likely to have meaning and effect. Striking that aspect of the law down -- even elliptically, as this decision does -- strikes a blow that badly needed to be struck.

I still don't understand why any rational person think government should have the power to keep people from pooling their money to advertise for or against politicians they like or dislike. The First Amendment is unambiguous on that point.

Look For More of This Kind of Thing As Robust American Democracy Vomits Out the Authoritarian Bush Agenda

A Federal Appeals Court has struck down the FCC's ludicrous rule against unintentional expletives in live programming.  The good news, of course, is that this paves the way for actual application of the First Amendment to broadcast media. This from the New York Times:

Both network executives and top officials at the Federal Communications Commission said the opinion could gut the ability of the commission to regulate any speech on television or radio.

There goes another bullet-point on the Republican agenda.

Even during the all-encompassing War On Terror, the Republican Party's concern with making sure we can't see or hear whatever we like hasn't waned. In the last few years, Republicans have tried to expand the purview of the FCC -- traditionally concerned only with broadcast media -- to include the censorship of other media as well. (I wrote about it here.) The censorship apparatus Senator Ted Stevens, just for example, seem to want to set up would be appalling in scope and would give the prudes and whack-jobs a say in just about every non-print mass communication issued.

Thankfully, the independent judiciary took a look at what the Bushies had in mind and gagged, striking a welcome blow on behalf of the Constitution. Except, of course, that Republicans don't like the independent judiciary, particularly when it insists the government doesn't have the power to legislate a Leave It To Beaver world. Here's FCC Chair and Republican apparatchik Kevin Martin blaming the courts for limiting his power:

I completely disagree with the court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families. The court says the commission is ‘divorced from reality.’ It is the New York court, not the commission, that is divorced from reality.

Translation: Don't worry, Republican base. Our war on basic American freedoms will continue.

Here's a Good Reason Why Government Shouldn't Provide Internet Service

The city of Boston, which made big, futuristic headlines when it announced it would provide free wi-fi throughout the city, is now using it's technological hegemony to block Boing Boing, a website that has ridiculed Boston's government.

Free, government-provided Internet service may sound like a good idea. It's not.

Not a First Amendment Issue Yet, But Give It a Few Weeks of Fast Fund-Raising and We've Got a Problem

So I'm in line at the grocery store yesterday and a couple of guys a few feet away are talking about how Don Imus got screwed.

"What about I=man's freedom of speech," one of them said, voice filled with outrage. "What about his First Amendment rights?"

I was tempted, but did not turn to him and say:

"It's not a First Amendment issue. The government didn't force Imus off the air. CBS and MSNBC made business decisions. What you witnessed is the intersection of the marketplace of ideas and commerce."

And then I would have walked nobly from the store with my grilled chicken breast and bag of dried figs, leaving them aghast at my wisdom and nobility. Except that I didn't say it because having conversations with strangers in grocery lines too often leads to discussions about the particular mishap of bodily functions that explains the purchase of whatever embarrassing person hygiene item is inevitably atop their shopping cart.

On the other hand, Al Sharpton is making noises like maybe he'd like the government to step in to clean up the airwaves, which in Sharpton's world means that everyone has to talk in the calm, reasoned tone for which Sharpton is so justifiably famous. That would be a First Amendment issue.

Yet Another Reasons to Loathe President Bush

Those of you who believe that  President Bush is a terrible President because of the incompetent way he's fought the War in Iraq are missing out on lots of other reasons why he's a terrible President.  Wars come and go, but the powers the President is aggregating in the Executive Branch will be with us for generations to come.  President Bush likes to say that the terrorists hate our freedoms; it's a big applause line on the stump.  Ironically, it could just as easily be said about the President himself, who seems to recognize no limit on the government's power to regulate the personal behavior of citizens.

Radley Balko at Reason looks at Attorney General Gonzales's recent firing of U.S. Attorneys and concludes that the administration would rather they spend time policing the personal behavior of citizens than corruption by Republican politicians.

All of this grows even more troubling when you consider what the priorities of the current Justice Department actually are. Attorney General Gonzalez himself, for example, has that the "top priority" of his tenure at the Justice Department would be, of all things, the prosecution of pornography. Not child pornography, mind you. Regular, adult porn--the kind starring and bought, produced, and sold by consenting adults.

Earlier this month, federal officials arrested the founders of Neteller, an overseas online payment processor, while they were in the U.S. to switch planes. They were arrested because Neteller was allowing its U.S. customers to use the service with online gambling sites. It's the third time U.S. officials have arrested foreign citizens in a U.S. airport on online gambling charges, despite the fact that in all three cases, the suspects were citizens and residents of foreign countries where online gambling is perfectly legal.

Put in context, we're supposed to give the President the power to imprison and torture people without legal oversight because we simply can't afford the time to jump through the hoops of long-standing law.  We do, however, have the time to dick around prosecuting stuff like porn and online poker, because government knows better than we do what we ought to do in a our spare time with our own money.

Here's a Bad Idea

Two men who claim to have been the target of Michael Richards' not-funny stand-up act want a cash settlement or they're going to sue.  MSNBC:

Frank McBride and Kyle Doss said they were part of a group of about 20 people who had gathered at West Hollywood’s Laugh Factory to celebrate a friend’s birthday. According to their attorney, Gloria Allred, they were ordering drinks when Richards berated them for interrupting his act.

The difference between Richards and a lot of other bad comedians is this: Richards has money.  I mean, assuming he hasn't pissed away his Seinfeld cut, he's probably sitting on $20 million or so.  Most other bad stand-ups don't have enough to buy their own drinks.

One of the offended audience members put it this way:

“To have him do what he did to me ... I can’t even explain it.  I was humiliated, even scared at one point.”

Scared?  Of a comedian?  Maybe Sam Kinison at three in the morning, up close screaming and spitting in your face.  But Michael Richards?  Scary?

When you go to a comedy club in a big, hard-drinking group, having the comic come after you is a dream come true.  There's nothing better than watching a member of your party become the target of one or more of the comics. 

I was in a club in Toronto, sitting right down front in a group of ten, and every one of the comics zeroed-in on the wife of our host.  She had big, prom-queen hair and was way overdressed for the little club, and one after another the comics took after her.  They joked about how slutty she was, asked her whether she was wearing panties, and -- in one case -- bet another audience member she'd have sex right on stage for the right amount of money.  The whole audience started pooling its funds to see how much it would take.  She became a running joke.  I've never laughed so hard in my life, and the woman at the center of all that attention was laughing right along with everyone else.  She left at the end of the night feeling like she'd been the star of the show. 

You don't sue when comedians insult and humiliate you, even when they're completely un-funny like Michael Richards.  You take the bad with the good and when it gets too bad you heckle or even walk out.  You demand your money back not because you're offended, but because the comic isn't funny. 

If you don't want to be berated and humiliated by the comics, stay home and watch it on TV or -- at least -- sit in the back where no one can find you. 

Gloria Allred should be ashamed of herself.  This lawsuit isn't worthy of a lawyer of her talents.  And the people doing the suing should be banned forever from every comedy club in the world.

As should, by the way, Michael Richards.

You've Got Freedom of Speech As Long As You Don't Say Anything To or About Anyone Powerful

Vice President Cheney's Secret Service detail arrests a father walking his 7 year old son home from piano practice for telling the Vice President that the administration's Iraq policy is "reprehensible," and the Transportation Safety Administration detains a business traveler for writing on his clear plastic bag of toiletries that TSA head "Kip Hawley is an idiot."

Just Because You Have Freedom of Speech Doesn't Mean You Should Use It

Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning, found to be the 87th best Senator in a recent SurveyUSA poll, has introduced legislation to censure Venezuelan President/grandstanding psychopath Hugo Chavez for saying rude things about President Bush.  On the radio this morning, Bunning explained that it was because "we cherish our freedom of speech" that he introduced this meaningless, empty, time-wasting legislation.

Because, of course, when you cherish the freedom to do something, you should censure people who do it.

More Evidence That Liberal Media Bias Is a Conservative Disorder

It's an article of faith among Republicans that the media are so biased against the right that they would publish any wild, unsubstantiated rumor if they thought it would give Democrats an advantage on election day.  The right's feverish disdain for the media is a critical psychological defense; it enables them to continue to believe that they are a put-upon minority and to dismiss inconvenient information without consideration.

There's no greater bogeyman, in the world of paranoid conservatives, than The New York Times.  In the conservative mind, the Times recognizes no limits when it comes to publishing slanderous material about Republicans.  Confronted with less-than-glowing reports about anything near and dear to the right, the right simply mutters invective about the Times and declines to engage.

When the Times recently revealed secret programs to find terrorists by culling the personal telephone and financial data of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism -- an apparent end-run around the law that accomplished nothing that couldn't have been accomplished within the law -- righties went into a righteous lather.  It wasn't that the Times got anything wrong in the stories, and the right didn't even bemoan a lapse in judgment among Times leadership.  The Times, according to the righties, was so deranged in its hatred of Republicans in general and President Bush in particular that it was deliberately sabotaging the war effort.  Congressman Peter King took to the airwaves to charge the Times with treason.  Not-at-all-deranged right-wing performance artist Ann Coulter went so far as to say that the Times' editors should be shot. 

Yes, well: An internal accounting of how the Times came to publish one of its blockbuster revelations about the Bush Administration's disdain for legal process shows that the Times did not, in fact, rush to publish the damaging information.  In fact, it is apparent that the Times was so concerned with getting the story right and not having an undue influence on the election that it held the story longer than was journalistically justifiable.  In fact, the Times held the story until after the 2004 election.

There are those on the left who are accusing the Times of going soft on President Bush, sitting on a story that might have cost him the election; there are certainly those on the right who will continue to believe that the Times' grievous sin was publishing the story at all.  But what the right can no longer credibly claim is that the Times acted without thought or consideration, that the paper is so biased against Republicans that it will abandon journalistic integrity to cause electoral damage.  In this case, and presumably in others like it, the Times erred on the side of being careful.

Which is more than can be said of those on the right who would abandon the First Amendment in order to preserve their political power.