Freedom of speech: "No 1st Amendment right to go into an auditorium & prevent a speaker from being heard"

By GottaLaff

Erwin Chemerinsky wrote an op-ed about a free speech debate they're having at UC Irvine, where he is dean.

However, there were two paragraphs that stood out to me, because he could have been writing about the Tea Tantrumers and their megaphonic escapades during the health care reform town hall meetings et al:

Freedom of speech, on campuses and elsewhere, is rendered meaningless if speakers can be shouted down by those who disagree. The law is well established that the government can act to prevent a heckler's veto -- to prevent the reaction of the audience from silencing the speaker. There is simply no 1st Amendment right to go into an auditorium and prevent a speaker from being heard, no matter who the speaker is or how strongly one disagrees with his or her message.

The remedy for those who disagreed with the ambassador was to engage in speech of their own, but in a way that was not disruptive. They could have handed out leaflets, stood with picket signs, spoken during the question-and-answer session, held a demonstration elsewhere on campus or invited their own speakers.

People really need to brush up on the First Amendment.

Especially people who complain that theirs are the rights being trampled upon.

Especially people who corrupt our democracy.

Especially people who infringe on the free speech of others.

Especially people who look like this:

Anti-Obama Facebook page: 483,518 fans, racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic images

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: The number of "fans" has topped half a million since the original post.

My pal over at Windy City Watch has graciously invited me to cross post this latest offering from a Facebook page, which is yet another appalling collection of racist sewage.

WCW and I agree that one way to eradicate these cretins is to expose them. The post says it all, so I have nothing to add (Please note: You'll have to scroll down to view the photos, out of consideration for those who wish to avoid them):

[...] A quick survey of the page’s photo gallery features at least 20, out of 443, offensive photos (racist, homophobic, anti-semitic) referencing President Obama as well as the First Lady.

Now let me be clear, opposing and criticizing President Obama IS NOT racist, however using some of the offensive imagery found in this photo gallery to attack him is.

I find it both pathetic and insulting that folks who post, e-mail and defend the use of these offensive images will portray those of us who dare to call them out on their bigotry as accusing anyone who does not the support Obama as racist, THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.

What is true is that there is a significant number of Obama detractors who are motivated by racism and I have no problem saying that.

To those who claim not to be racist I encourage you to strongly condemn this crap.

Now that the light has been shown on this fan page lets talk about potential fall out:

* Some will quit the page. [...]

* The page’s administrators or Facebook might remove the photos or even delete the page entirely, only to have it replaced by others, which will be equally offensive.

* Others will defend the content on First Amendment grounds, these folks usually are low information activists/bigots/voters who don’t really know what the First Amendment is about.

For starters I should note that I have not demanded that this page or the photos be taken down, I wouldn’t mind leaving it up just to show how racist some of Obama’s detractors are.

Secondly, those moaning about free speech should know that as they exercise their rights to be unrepentant racists, many of us will exercise our rights to call them, what they are, BIGOTS.

Lastly, the First Amendment only deals with the government restricting speech, Facebook who could face a member/advertiser backlash, can do whatever it wants if it feels this page hurts its image and damages its bottom line.

Below are some screen caps of some of the offending pictures...

Obama shines Palin's shoes

Watermelons at the White House

Pure ignorance

Confederates over throw the Capitol

Anti-Semitism

Racist birther photo

Obama as a pimp

Homophobic

Obama as a monkey

Sexual stereotypes of Black Men/White Women

Obama as a Muslim

Obama using saying "Aw Hell Naw"

Obama taking Palin from behind

Attack on the First Lady

Another attack on the First Lady

Attack on the homeless

Putting anti-white slurs in Obama's mouth

Witch doctor

Obama as a thug

Nearly half a million "fans". Welcome to "Real America".

VIDEO- Ex-Foxer: I was "uncomfortable with Beck" so I left.

By GottaLaff

The punditiots continue to rant about how whiney the White House is, and how theyre "losing the P.R. war" against Fox, as Howie Kurtz asserted. The fact is, there is more exposure of Fox's bias and smear tactics now than ever, partly because Team Obama refuses to accept their shoddy, sleazy methods as real news.

Countering lies is fair and balanced. Mudslinging isn't. I wouldn't categorize what the White House is doing as "attacking the free press". More like correcting the record and expressing an opinion.

Whether one agrees with whether they should or not is one thing, but characterizing it as an infringement on the First Amendment is a little over the top. Now, as Larisa Alexandrovna said here, if the White House got in the way of a free press and/or created a breech of public trust, I'd be protesting... loudly. But they're not, so I won't.

Oh, and Howie Kurtz conveniently forgot to report the entire story about the White House allegedly shunning Fox. That was a fabrication.



Jane Hall, who was a contributor to ClusterFox for 11 years, said, "Trust me, it is not Nixonian of them [the White House] to go after them."

Nico Pitney summed it up well, when he said, "Fox News is the voice of the opposition...By and large, the network is a 24-hour campaign against the Obama administration."

VIDEO: "Abort Obama, Not the Unborn" sign "not a threat"

By GottaLaff

Um, illegal or not, maybe he could have worded it differently?

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning.

The sign, which read "Abort Obama Not the Unborn," was returned to Harrison later that day, the report said.

Police spokesman said this morning that the sign was taken in error, and Oklahoma City residents should not be worried that their First Amendment rights will be violated.

Good call, bad taste.

Telco immunity faces first court challenge

By GottaLaff

I'm likin' this:

Plaintiffs suing AT&T and other telecommunications companies filed a lengthy motion in court this week arguing the government could not retroactively invalidate their lawsuit because its immunity authority is unconstitutional and destroys the notion of coequal branches of government. [...]

A 61-page filing argues that Congress doesn't have the authority to issue a retroactive immunity statute, that immunity violates separation of powers by improperly inflating executive branch authority, that immunity violates individuals rights to due process, that the secrecy provisions of immunity violate the First Amendment by creating a "chilling effect" on free speech, and that the government has not justified dismissing the telecom lawsuits even if its ability to do so was constitutional. [...]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union are representing plaintiffs in the various telecom lawsuits the government is attempting to dismiss. [...]

Plaintiffs hope the courts will reach a similar decision to strike down the FISA Amendments Act.

Stay tuned.

We should be all a-Twitter

By GottaLaff

I get e-mails, and this one was of particular interest. It's from my pal Karoli over at Drumsnwhistles, verbatim:

[E]vidently some in Congress are making an effort to restrict Congress people's access and use of social media sites like Twitter and Qik. Unfortunately it comes from Democrats, but I suspect it would be the same with Repubs in the majority too. At any rate, no political bloggers are picking this up and running with it, sadly. John Culberson has been remarkably engaging and willing to have a conversation about some pretty major subjects, including FISA.

Here are some excerpts from her post:

Congressmen John Culberson (R-Tx) and Tim Ryan (D-OH) are on Twitter, and regularly send updates to Twitter directly from the House floor. [...] I view this as a huge leap in political communication. No longer constrained by the “official” responses, these representatives choose to directly speak to anyone who follows them on Twitter, and tell us what’s going on.

Unfortunately, there are some Democrats in Congress who take a dim view of any communication with voters that isn’t “official communication”. This includes video and text communication, evidently. Earlier today this came through Twitter from Rep. Culberson:

I just learned the Dems are trying to censor Congressmen’s ability to use Twitter Qik YouTube Utterz etc - outrageous and I will fight them.

Based on the rules set forth in the document below, every communication any House member sent to Culberson would have to be vetted and disclaimed before it could be posted. Obviously that’s not acceptable. [...] If we don’t protest this obvious violation of the First Amendment they’ll succeed at silencing someone who is attempting to actually do what he was elected to do — represent the people in his District and communicate with them. The fact that his communication is in real time makes it more meaningful than any vetted and disclaimed statement would be.

Please go read the rest here.

I suggest writing Nancy Pelosi and Michael Capuano to let them know that the Congress should not be BANNING social media; it should be embracing it.

Thank you, Karoli. Excellent post and one that we should take seriously.