Politics and Speech
I'm a First Amendment absolutist.
But first politics... everyone likes to denigrate politics, but I think politics is a wonderful invention. Politics is the method we use to resolve differences without violence.
These two ideas combine when it comes to political speech. For reasons beyond my comprehension, the US Supreme Court has allowed the US government to regulate, restrict, license, and bind with paperwork the most important speech of all: political speech.
From my viewpoint, this has resulted in gamesmanship, dueling lawsuits, encumbrances on the exercise of speech, and a mountain of paperwork for any group trying to exercise their First Amendment rights during an election. And it favors unions, as usual, who can turn out workers to support their candidates under union discipline.
What's worse is that the US Senate voted on an amendment to the Constitution to permit the government to impose "reasonable" restrictions on political speech. The Democrats voted for, the Republicans voted against, and the amendment failed -- but this is a terrifying prospect. The amendment is in response to the Citizens United decision, which had noting to do with "corporation as a person" (read the decision, not the news reports) but with the idea that alliances can form to support speech even during an election. I note in passing that the weasel-word "reasonable" does not otherwise appear in the US Constitution, and it's amazing to me anyone would include it.
What's left if political speech is suppressed? Politics is how we solve problems without the use of violence: the movement to suppress it bothers me a great deal.
As such I can't possibly vote for a Presidential candidate who not only continues to fret over having lost the Citizens United decision, but also intends to amend the Constitution to regulate away certain speakers entirely.
But first politics... everyone likes to denigrate politics, but I think politics is a wonderful invention. Politics is the method we use to resolve differences without violence.
These two ideas combine when it comes to political speech. For reasons beyond my comprehension, the US Supreme Court has allowed the US government to regulate, restrict, license, and bind with paperwork the most important speech of all: political speech.
From my viewpoint, this has resulted in gamesmanship, dueling lawsuits, encumbrances on the exercise of speech, and a mountain of paperwork for any group trying to exercise their First Amendment rights during an election. And it favors unions, as usual, who can turn out workers to support their candidates under union discipline.
What's worse is that the US Senate voted on an amendment to the Constitution to permit the government to impose "reasonable" restrictions on political speech. The Democrats voted for, the Republicans voted against, and the amendment failed -- but this is a terrifying prospect. The amendment is in response to the Citizens United decision, which had noting to do with "corporation as a person" (read the decision, not the news reports) but with the idea that alliances can form to support speech even during an election. I note in passing that the weasel-word "reasonable" does not otherwise appear in the US Constitution, and it's amazing to me anyone would include it.
What's left if political speech is suppressed? Politics is how we solve problems without the use of violence: the movement to suppress it bothers me a great deal.
As such I can't possibly vote for a Presidential candidate who not only continues to fret over having lost the Citizens United decision, but also intends to amend the Constitution to regulate away certain speakers entirely.