Imagine trying to visit your favorite website, only to find -- BZZT! -- the site's been blocked by the government. It happens every day in China and Iran, but now the U.S. Senate wants to bring Internet censorship home.
This week the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to pass a bill called COICA which would let the Attorney General force all American ISPs to block particular websites. It'd be the first time the we'd set up an Internet censorship regime in the US, and yet most senators don't seem to see any problem with it. Can you sign our urgent petition today?
Yeah, WTF? My thought exactlym though it's far from the first time we've seen this:
Radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger tells Larry King on CNN that she will not renew her contract, which is up at the end of the year.
"My contract is up at the end of the year, and I have made the decision not to do radio anymore," Schlessinger said. "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what is on my mind."
Dr. Laura has been under fire for repeatedly using the N-word on a recent segment of her show.
"I am not retiring," she said. "I am not quitting. I feel energized."
Of course she's not quitting. Only quitters quit... by staying on the job. She's Palinizing. Which is only fitting, since Palin is the queen of this sort of thinking. Press asking tough questions?
In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.
"Three weeks ago I was asked a politically-charged question with a hidden personal agenda. I answered my question honestly and sincerely from my heart [...] As [Perez Hilton] was trying to be self-promoting and hateful while I have remained silent since, I am honored to be here today to finally let my voice be heard and address the hateful attacks, despicable rumors and false allegations I have had within the last three weeks."
"On April 19th, on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech and I was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America. It undermines the Constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought for."
"The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against [Miss California] Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable," said Palin in a statement. Palin added that she spoke to Prejean soon after the beauty queen said publicly that she believed she had lost the Miss USA competition due to her answer to blogger -- and contest judge -- Perez Hilton that marriage is between a man and a woman.
"What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe --- marriage is between a man and a woman," Palin added. "Our Constitution protects us all -- not just those who agree with the far left."
All of us except gays & lesbians, of course! And Moslems! And Arabs! And Hispanics!
Well, with such shining examples to follow, why not "Dr." Laura, too???
Ah, so that's what the First Amendment means! Solipsism or Narcissism? We Report, You Decide!
This is too much for even Fox News toady Carl Cameron, apparently. From TPM:
Sharron Angle has further expounded on her strategy of courting conservative media and avoiding more mainstream sources -- it's not just about money, as she's said before, but also about only being asked the questions she wants.
"We needed to have the press be our friend," Angle said in an interview that aired on Fox over the weekend.
"Wait a minute. Hold on a second. To be your friend?" said a disbelieving Carl Cameron. Before Angle could fully answer, he added: "That sounds naive." Apparently this was too much for even him.
"Well, no," said Angle. "We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported."
Angle continued: "And when I get on a show, and I say, 'Send money to SharronAngle.com,' so that your listeners will know that if they want to support me they need to go to SharronAngle.com."
Well, at least we know have a clear definition of the "liberal media": Anyone who asks a question that a conservative doesn't want to answer.
This is really a very revealing tip-of-the-iceberg moment for understanding how conservatives completely reinterpret the entire framework of liberal democracy: Rights for me, but not for thee! And yes America is founded on the principles of liberal political theory, which is why conservatives hate America--a fact we should lear to start repeating over and over again.
O'Reilly kicked off the segment with this statement:
I'm a big boy with a big megaphone, and I can defend myself. But many of you can't. If you're labeled a bigot, or punished in the marketplace for holding holding a non-liberal opinion, you can't right that wrong.
And this far-left fascism is very wrong. It must be called out. Fair-minded Americans can disagree on issues, but our freedoms must be protected.
To which I retorted:
So, it's wrong to be labeled "a bigot", even if you are one, but it's fine to accuse people of "far-left fascism". Good to know!
Media Matters highlighted this without comment, under the headline, "Lawyers try to explain to O'Reilly that his 'rights' aren't violated by private criticism":
Biil-O kicks things off with this statement (onscreen wording varies slightly), under the banner "Civil Rights Watch":
I'm a big boy with a big megaphone, and I can defend myself. But many of you can't. If you're labeled a bigot, or punished in the marketplace for holding holding a non-liberal opinion, you can't right that wrong.
And this far-left fascism is very wrong. It must be called out. Fair-minded Americans can disagree on issues, but our freedoms must be protected.
So, it's wrong to be labeled "a bigot", even if you are one, but it's fine to accuse people of "far-left fascism". Good to know!
And this is vital to protecting "our freedoms", which of course, do not include the freedom to marry, if you happen to be gay or lesbian. This is all par for the course, of course. And there's nothing terribly new about it. After all, the slaveholders of Virginia were fierce defenders of "liberty" and "freedom". So we should be used to this by now, right?
Well, not so much, actually. The two lawyers in this clip try ro set O'Reilly straight on the fact that he doesn't have a constitutional right to be free from criticism, but what's going on here is really much deeper than that, and cuts right to the core of the movement conservative mindset, which is basically not just that they have a constitutional right to be free from criticism, but a God-given right to do whatever the hell they want to do without any opposition whatsoever. This is, in short, the rationale of theocracy--but they conceive of it, and try to express it in the language of American secular democracy.
Their goal here is quite Orwellian, to make it impossible to express--much less defend--the actual meaning of free speech for all, and to rewire that language to instead mean the right of conservatives alone to speak without contradiction. And anything short of this total domination means that they are victims.
A federal judge has ruled that a history teacher at a Southern California public high school violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" in a classroom lecture. The judge, James Selna, issued the ruling after a 16-month legal battle between a student, Chad Farnan, and his former teacher, James Corbett. Mr. Farnan's lawsuit said Mr. Corbett had made more than 20 statements that were disparaging to Christians and their beliefs. The judge found that Mr. Corbett's reference to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense" violated the First Amendment's establishment clause. Courts have interpreted the clause as prohibiting government employees from displaying religious hostility.
So a public school teacher is in violation of the first amendment by speaking disparagingly against a religious belief? Really?
Here's the First Amendment:
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.
I guess someone can interpret that to mean that a teacher speaking in a classroom is establishing a religion or prohibiting its exercise by disparaging one, (or maybe because that comes first in the clause such an interpretation supercedes the very clear provision against abridging the freedom of speech) but it sure looks like a stretch to me. In fact, it seems like a ruling that could only be made in bizarroworld.
Bizarroworld, indeed. But that's really just par for the course.
For the record, I was determined not to write about Proposition 8 passing in California. (Because really, how many times and in how many ways can you say, "I hate you, 52% of California. I hate you. I hate you"?) But then I read the article in this past Wednesday's New York Times about Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater. He resigned earlier this week after activists outed his $1,000 contribution to the Yes on 8 folks and several prominent gay men in theater complained -- including Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer ("Hairspray") who called Eckern to say that he would not let his work be performed in the theater.
Now Eckern, along with Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the ballot measure, are defending their bigotry as a constitutional right and complaining that those who protest their actions are being intolerant. Per Schubert: "No matter your opinion on Prop. 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate or harass anyone for exercising their constitutional rights."
No sense of irony, these straight guys. But hearing them play the you're-the-real-bigot-for-punishing-me-for-exercising-my-right-to-free-speech card just got on my last gay nerve. So here we are. I'm writing about Prop 8.
This is something I've been bothered by for a long, long time, without ever properly focusing on it--a seemingly widespread tendency of those on the right to use "free speech" and First Amendment claims to justify just about anything they want to do. It's a favorite argument of theirs, of course, that hate crime laws are a "violation of free speech"--and perhaps this is why I've never properly focused on this, because it's just so incredibly stupid. By that same logic, charging someone with conspiracy to commit murder would also be a violation of the First Amendment. After all, you are punishing someone for exercising free speech!
Now, however, it's very clear that letting this stuff slide because it's so idiotic is simply not an option.
One of the bubbling news stories I've been tracking has been this initiative by the Alliance Defense Fund (a right wing ACLU pale imitation) to have a big bunch of religious leaders get overtly partisan in their sermons tomorrow.
It is pretty clear to me this stunt represents the religious right playing with fire. They're going to get burnt if their ill-conceived efforts to destroy the wall between church and state succeed.
STATE BLOGS
