Comments on: Sanitized for your protection

By: james

james — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:50:49 +0000

brett – Good point. Perhaps the courts should not have this power.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:41:24 +0000

That’s “falsely” cry fire, and gag orders might be similar to barring crying fire in a crowded theater… if the whole country were a crowded theater, and they were gagging statements that would cause immediate loss of life due to riots. In other words, they’re not at all similar.

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:26:40 +0000

Jay, just out of curiosity, has there ever been an encumbent president that did not screen who came to events? Its sort of a requirement the secret service holds them to. Granted, it might be getting abused and used to make sure no dissenters come to the events, Im afraid I dont know the answer to that. There may also be reason to question the attitudes of dissenters towards Bush versus dissenters towards Kerry. I have met people with a nearly violent hatred for Bush, but not that many with an equally violent hatred of Kerry. I know many people who are thoroughly disgusted with Kerry, but they are not trying to sabatoge him with irrational outbursts. Perhaps the difference in attitude is not related to their views on free speech. I could be wrong, its just a thought…

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:37:29 +0000

It had not previously come to my attention that the First amendment guaranteed the right to attend campaign events unscreened It doesn’t. I didn’t say that. I wasn’t accusing the BC04 campaign of anything illegal. I was remarking on what I see as a difference in attitude. As to your reference to prior restraint, I don’t know what you are referring to, but the First Amendment doesn’t protect libel.

By: james

james — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:17:40 +0000

Brett – Interesting comment. I have always viewed gag orders in a similar vein as restrictions against shouting fire in a crowded theater. Namely, my protected freedom of speech does not include the right to slander or through words, cause bodily harm to another individual.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:08:45 +0000

It had not previously come to my attention that the First amendment guaranteed the right to attend campaign events unscreened. I’d thought it guaranteed the right to do things like publish works criticizing candidates for public office within a month of an election… Both have done, and propose to do, grevious damage to our 1st amendment rights in the name of “reform”.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:34:59 +0000

Neither Bush NOR Kerry have any particular respect for freedom of speech. Hmm, Bush pre-screens anyone who wants to attend his campaign events, Kerry doesn’t. That seems like a substantive difference to me.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:54:03 +0000

“There could be a gag order on the whole proceedings and not really effect freedom of speech.” That’s the most glaring contradiction I’ve seen in print in ages. “Gag orders” are attacks on freedom of speech, and nothing else. It’s always amazed me the way the courts feel entitled to issue orders which if drafted as legislation they’d strike down in an instant…

By: james

james — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:01:31 +0000

Addressing the topic at hand. The tone of the article seems incorrect. Its not an attempt to restrict speech by the Supreme Court. Its an attempt by the Justice Department to creatively edit an opponents (ACLU) court papers. Not papers to the court, but court papers released to the public. There could be a gag order on the whole proceedings and not really effect freedom of speech. The real concerns over freedom of speech are those restrictions committed at the local level. Restrictions on the right to assemble, restrictions on type of speech in schools and universities, restrictions of type of speech in public forums. These are the ones that need immediate action. These attacks on first amendment rights are being done by both parties and both political leanings.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:28:27 +0000

I don’t see how the Supreme court could rightfully complain about being censored, after the BCRA ruling. What’s sauce for the goose… Neither Bush NOR Kerry have any particular respect for freedom of speech. We’re in for a rough patch however the election comes out, and I suspect it’s going to get a LOT worse before the backlash amounts to anything.

By: Screwy Hoolie

Screwy Hoolie — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:24:24 +0000

Governator said that the right to dissent was one of the reasons he’s a great american in a great party… WTF? SCRUTINY HOOLIGANS has more…

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:01:20 +0000

Um, guys, interesting and important as the gun control/2nd amendment debate is, could we not have some constructive comment on the substance of the post? This is, after all, a case of the government censoring the judgement of its own Supreme Court on dissent and executive power. I thought 2nd Amendment “absolutists” were supposed to be concerned about this sort of thing.

By: james

james — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:45:10 +0000

Here is the ACLU’s official stance on the 2nd ammendment. “We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. ” http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html They also have this statement: “ACLU POLICY “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”—Policy #47 ” Not an accurate interpretation of US vs. Miller . pseudosophist – Don’t feel to bad. A 9th circuit court judge also used “Arming America” as a cited reference after the scandal broke. The work is a proven fraud but its still being used by pro-gun control advocates.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:56:45 +0000

I’ll grant you that calling you clueless wasn’t very nice, but how else can you describe somebody citing “Arming America” almost four years after it was exposed as a fraud? Your exposure to this debate has to have been remarkably circumscribed to have not known that. Heck, if you’d just done a search on his name, or the title of the book, you couldn’t have avoided knowing. Never assume any one source is being honest with you. Both sides in any sizeable debate will include fraudulent sources. Search engines, though, are wonderful resources for becoming genuinely informed. If you use ‘em. Jason, the ACLU doesn’t “officially” have an opinion about gun control. Except that they’ve lent their good name to furthering the gun control movement’s lies. And why they’d put their credibility in hock like that, if they didn’t care?

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:15:03 +0000

I got a 20-gauge shotgun on my 12th birthday. I joined the ACLU just a few years later. The application back then stipulated that fascists and communists could not apply for membership, which even now appears to be an implicit bar to some.