Tag: 1st Amendment

Not #brettkimberlin’s Velvet Revolution

HershbloggerLeave a comment

Added to the blogroll.

Here’s the initial post: Brett Kimberlin and the Justice of Google

On November 30, 2004, convicted terrorist bomber, drug dealer, and perjurer Brett Kimberlin formed a Maryland corporation for the purpose of soliciting tax-exempt donations from the public and charitable foundations, to promote an alleged “network of more than 100 progressive organizations reaching millions of people demanding progressive change through our various campaigns”. Campaigns such as offering bounties for the head of the Chamber of Commerce, the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice, and proof that John Kerry actually won the 2004 presidential election.

This corporation was also known as the Velvet Revolution, or “VelvetRevolution.US, Inc.” according to its corporate filings.

…We believe it is a farce and a disgrace that Brett Kimberlin seeks to cloak his nefarious acts under the name “Velvet Revolution”, a name which in the rest of the world stands for courage and dignity in the face of terror.

Brett Kimberlin stole the Velvet Revolution. We’re stealing it back.

Visit them often, and it would be nice if you do so from TOC’s blogroll.

Update: 3:28PM Criminal charges dropped against Aaron Walker, but gag order remains

Copyright 2005-2019

NY State Senators: We need Canada’s speech laws

HershbloggerLeave a comment

Only 10 times more restrictive.

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom [speech] should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

Refined? That isn’t “refined.” It’s what statist fools mean when they call the Constitution a living document: “It means what we say it means, whenever we say what it means.” It’s Orwell’s Newspeak. It’s Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland. It’s Bill Clinton expounding on the meaning of the word “is.”

If this…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

…isn’t clear on the subject of speech, then I suggest it is also not clear on freedom from religion, freedom of religion, freedom to publish, or the right to associate freely. All those things are subject to the whims of unelected and faceless bureaucrats.

Copyright 2005-2019

We’re well shut of Lee Bollinger

HershbloggerLeave a comment

Not that that has materially improved the intellectual diversity of the University of Michigan.  Still, Bollinger’s recent plea to bail out print media, at least, won’t be associated with UofM.

Via PajamasMedia and Frank J. Tipler: Columbia U.’s Bollinger Oblivious on MSM Bailout 

His argument is so obviously false that he himself, in his own article, cannot avoid providing the facts needed to refute it. For example, Bollinger writes:

There are examples of other institutions in the U.S. where state support does not translate into official control. The most compelling are our public universities

RTWT

Apparently, Bollinger has no clue why Hillsdale College does not accept any money from the Feds. 

Bailing out any media is a violation of the First Amendment.

Copyright 2005-2019

Shotgun Sellout

HershbloggerLeave a comment

‘Shotgun Sellout’: House Democrats cut special deal with NRA

House Democrats held a shotgun wedding between campaign finance “reformers” and the National Rifle Association today in announcing a carve out for the powerful gun lobby in a bill responding to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

The “Shotgun Sellout” exempts large organizations from the most burdensome regulations of the DISCLOSE Act, “Democratic Incumbents Seek to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections,” while pistol whipping genuine grassroots groups. …

Draft amendment affecting the NRA as part of a “Manager’s Amendment” for consideration this week in the House Rules Committee:
Exempt section 501(c)(4) organizations” are also exempt from new reporting requirements. These are organizations which have qualified as having tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code for each of the 10 years prior to making a campaign-related disbursement, that had 1 million or more dues-paying members in the prior calendar year, that had members in each of the 50 states, that received no more than 15 percent of their total funding from corporations or labor organizations, and that do not use any corporate or union money to pay for their campaign-related expenditures.

NRA members, especially, should call the NRA at 1-800-672-3888 and ask them why they don’t defend the First Amendment as strongly as they do the Second.  They should withdraw their support and urge a vote against the DISCLOSE Act.

Copyright 2005-2019

State speech registry

Hershblogger1 Comment

In the spirit of those states criminalizing (see yesterday’s post) the videotaping of police, State Senator Bruce Patterson (R-District 7) wants to register journalists: he is not asking, yet, to criminalize those who write without a license, he merely wants to get the list of exceptions in place.

Since Senator Patterson was mentioned for this proposal on Fox News, he’s been defending himself on the floor of the Michigan Senate by pointing out the difference between “voluntary registration” and “licensing.”

He’s right, there is a difference, but there remain some problems with this semantic defense:

1), What responsibility is it of the taxpayers of Michigan to be paying to create and administer such a registry?

2), What business is it of the State of Michigan to put its imprimatur on information or on individuals’ speech, flawed or otherwise?

3), Since among other things, the law would require applicants for the State conferred title of “Michigan registered reporter” to possess: a) “Good moral character”; b) a degree in journalism; and c) submit three writing samples: 3a) How does the State make a determination of moral character? 3b), If no degree is required to be a “Michigan legislator”, why should “journalists” have to have one? 3c) Who is going to grade the writing samples; on what basis?

Senator Patterson does not deserve the title “Michigan legislator;” probably could never have achieved it under his rules for “journalists;” and certainly should not be allowed to keep it. Apparently term limits are working in favor of that outcome.

Copyright 2005-2019

Cubs v Dodgers – April 25, 1966

HershbloggerLeave a comment

33 years ago today Rick Monday suppressed the “free speech” of a couple of trespassers. Of course, this particular attempt at expression of free speech was not free speech at all. The rest of us are not required to provide the venue, something the left has never understood.

Which is why they want to re-instate the “Fairness” doctrine.

H/T MC

Copyright 2005-2019