Forward Biased (Less-than-current Events)

What is Freedom?

I ask "What is Freedom" because apparently there is some disagreement on such a fundamental question.

Consider this snippet from a Letter to the Editor in my local birdcage liner:

Freedom of speech is a great blessing, and this right must not be abused but used judiciously. It is not a license to hurt people’s feelings indiscriminately or denigrate their faith through hate manifestations.

ABUBAKR G. SHAIKH

Based on my personal belief of what "Freedom" means, I think Abubakr is missing the point.  To me, Freedom means exactly the opposite of "must not be abused" and "is not a license to hurt people's feelings."  I believe Freedom allows just that for those boorish enough to use it in that way.  For example, I depise the Micheal Moores of our country.  I think they damage the fabric of our society in search of monetary gain.  I often wish they would either shut up, or have to live in the repressed societies they side with against their own country in their cynical and selfish self-aggrandizement.  But I don't think they should be censored.  I don't think they are "abusing" Freedom of Speech, although I do question their motives for saying what they do.

Fundamentally, I believe "Freedom of Speech" means "if I offend you with my speech, then you have the right to say so, but you do not have the right to silence me, either through regulation or intimidation."  Unsurprisingly in the context of the ridiculous and infantile Islamic temper tantrum over the Danish cartoons, Abubakr feels differently.  This goes to the heart of why it is so dangerous to our country and our freedom for our media to roll over and self-censor themselves at the demand of Islamic thugs.

Our freedoms were hard-won, and the cavalier way in which many of our fellow citizens are willing to throw them away sickens me.  They need to wake up and think, THINK, about what it really means to have Freedom.  It does not mean what Akubakr thinks it does: you're free to say anything that I don't disagree with.  It means that Akubakr and others like him need to grow up and start acting like adults, or go back to a nice, quiet, and oppressive dictatorship so they never have to worry about being offended by what others say.  Of course, were Akubakr to do that, he had better make sure he never attempts to use his freedom of speech - that's a one-way ticket to getting fed feet first into a plastic shredder.

Alito and the first amendment

Eugene Volohk has written a column in the Wall St. Journal about Samuel Alito's past decisions that give us a clue as to how he might rule on issues involving the first amendment.  While any such speculation is, well, speculation, I do like what I read—especially since I hope to see McCain-Feingold back before the SCOTUS soon, this time to be repealed, never again to darken our already-too-convoluted legal code.  As I understand it, the FEC's recent attacks on internet speech are a direct outgrowth of this misguided law.

What would Samuel Alito's confirmation mean for First Amendment law? It's impossible to be sure...

Not that this stops anyone from writing reams about him, of course...and I confess I'm one of those who will read some of it.

...but his appeals court opinions give us some clues. A Justice Alito would likely take a pretty broad view of free speech protections; support religious exemptions from some generally applicable laws; uphold evenhanded benefit programs that include both religious and secular institutions; and uphold the use of religious symbolism by the government.

• Free speech. Until the late 1980s, liberal Supreme Court justices generally supported broad free speech rights, and conservative justices usually took a narrower view. No longer.

I hadn't really thought of this before, but upon reflection, it's true.  I wonder why.

I've studied the votes in free speech cases from 1994 (when Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed) until last summer, when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died. The broadest views of free speech were held by conservative Anthony Kennedy, followed by conservative Clarence Thomas tied with liberal David Souter. The narrowest views were held by liberal Justice Breyer, followed by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (both conservatives). Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (liberals) and Antonin Scalia (conservative) were in the middle.

Judge Alito's past decisions suggest that he would be closer to Justices Kennedy and Thomas than to Justice O'Connor. Naturally, those decisions are shaped by Supreme Court precedents; but precedents often give lower court judges some flexibility, and Judge Alito has generally used this flexibility to protect speech.

Sounds good to me, and bodes well for bloggers—no, Americans, and all lovers of freedom—everywhere.

(Via Instapundit.)

I'm with Patterico

In case you were wondering, if when the FEC comes to tell me that bloggers like myself can no longer post on political topics or within so many days of an election, I will not obey their rules.

I will not attempt to change the characterization of this blog in an attempt to get off on a technicality.  I am going to excercise my first amendment rights with no particular eye toward their regulations one way or another.  And if I am arrested, or otherwised sanctioned for doing so, you will all know, as well as knowing about the thousands of others more well-known than I doing the same thing but with more impact.  And I believe that if the FEC tries to make an example out of me or any other small fry out there, nothing would make someone a martyr any faster than that.

I realize that this opens me to possible peril, particularly since I have a family that depends on me.  But this is too important an issue.  The fact that I believe that they can't possibly arrest several thousands of bloggers committing civil disobedience all at once is comforting, but not at all a guarantee of getting off scot-free.

Patterico explains:

Quite simply, I intend to go on blogging like I did before. Regardless of whether the FEC promulgates rules for political speech on the Internet, I plan to express my opinions just as I did before. If I need to link to a politician’s campaign web site in order to make my point, I’m going to do so. If I decide to endorse a candidate, I will. If I think my readers should send that candidate money, I will encourage them to do so.

I’ll do this during the next congressional election, and during the next presidential election. I will engage in this core political speech whenever I feel like it. And I will not change my behavior in the slightest, regardless of any FEC regulations.

For example, if the FEC warns me that one more link to a certain politician’s web site will not be permitted, but that link is necessary for me to make my point, I am going to include that link.

I am not going to sign any petitions asking for government’s permission to do this, and I am not going to seek out media credentials to obtain special permission to do this.

... I would welcome such a case, because it would expose, once and for all, the fraud that is campaign finance reform. If the American public saw a citizen dragged off to jail for expressing his political views, maybe this insanity would finally end. Maybe even the editorial board of the New York Times would finally see the light! Since the Supreme Court is little more than a puppet of elite opinionmakers, we might get a ruling upholding our God-given right to free speech.

And if we don’t get such a ruling, maybe we’ll get a Constitutional amendment overruling McCain/Feingold.

I fundamentally don’t believe that Americans, who routinely fight and die for our basic liberties, are just going to stand by and watch someone imprisoned for expressing political beliefs.

But we need to shake them awake.

... Our freedom of speech cannot be held hostage by government bureaucrats and politicians. John McCain and Russ Feingold have engineered the most serious attack on Americans’ most fundamental rights in recent history. We have to fight it.

Don’t go hat in hand asking the government for permission to speak.

Fight!

For the record, I'm taking his pledge.  Know all who come by these presents, that

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

There.  Now I guess they know where to tell the IRS that I am.