FREE SPEECH ROUNDUP

FREE SPEECH ROUNDUP

First, let's get this straight: THE SCOTUS DID ITS JOB. That's right. Rehnquist et al. did exactly what they were supposed to do. They ruled on the constitutionality of a law enacted by Congress.

Now, I disagree with their decision to uphold any of this horrible law just as much as the next guy -- IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL -- but they did not create the law nor engage in judicial activism.

Judicial activism is when a judge creates law where there was none before. Or where he or she actively overrrules a law on the books which has not been found unconstitutional. Neither of these things happened here.

If you are upset with someone over this, be upset with Congress and G.W. They passed this abomination and he signed it into law. YES, they hoped that it would be overturned by the SCOTUS, but it was their fault, not the courts.

Now it is up to US to convince our congressmen and women to change this terrible horrible no good very bad law.

Please click the links on the side of this page and send a note to your senators and representatives, and to President Bush, to urge them to overturn this constitutional nightmare.

Mark Tapscott: Wake Up Conservatives! Supreme Court just did what could never happen here

What could never happen in America happened Dec. 10 when the nation’s highest court approved McCain-Feingold, including a provision that makes it the first law in American history that empowers Congress to silence a major form of political speech in the media during an election campaign.

The offending provision makes it illegal for TV or radio stations to air issue ads paid for by independent individuals or groups 30 days before a congressional primary election or 60 days prior to a federal general election. In other words, criticizing your congressman can now be illegal.

No wonder dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia said “this is a sad day for freedom of speech.” Indeed, time is growing short for conservatives to make protecting free speech a top priority issue.

Because it so compromises a fundamental constitutional right of every American, McCain-Feingold must be resisted at every turn. There will come a time when this decision will be viewed among such infamous decisions as the Dred Scott Case that upheld slavery in 1857 and Plessy v. Ferguson that approved separate-but-equal schools in 1896.

Scott and Plessy were ultimately reversed, as I believe McCain-Feingold will be reversed someday. In the meantime, conservatives should target all incumbents who voted for this odious legislation. That might mean noting in radio and TV spot campaigns that “starting X days from today, you won’t be able to hear this ad because Congressman Y helped pass a law to silence his critics.” Maybe it means circulating petitions to “save Free Speech - Recall McCain-Feingold.” Or Conservative Talk Radio hosts could invite issue ad texts to be read on air in “Free Speech Underground Teach-ins” beginning 60 days before the election.

Thomas Sowell: Courts without law

The merits or demerits of this particular law, restricting what you can say when, or how much money you can contribute to get your message out, are all beside the point. Just what part of 'no law' don't the Supreme Court justices understand?

The sad -- indeed, tragic -- fact is that they understand completely. They just think that this legislation is a good idea and are not going to let the Constitution stand in their way.

Supreme Court Slashes Freedom of Speech

Let’s be clear about what a slim majority of the nation’s highest tribunal approved: The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” but Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer say Congress can legally silence political speech expressed in TV “issue ads” beginning 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.

Avoiding the “appearance of a corrupting influence” of money in politics is more important to the justices than preserving our unabridged right to speak our minds about a democracy’s most important political issue: who should represent us. These five justices have effectively insulated congressional incumbents from criticism in TV ads for two months before an election.

Because it abridges a fundamental constitutional right, McConnell, United States Senator, et. al. v. Federal Election Commission, et. al. ranks with such previous infamous decisions as Dred Scott, upholding slavery in 1858, and Plessy v. Ferguson’s 1896 approval of separate-but-equal schools.

There are two particularly disturbing implications of McConnell v. FEC. First, it encourages elected officials, bureaucrats and judges at all levels of government to seek more curbs on political speech. The decision’s logic is compelling: Political speech that is “bad” two months prior to an election must also be corrupting two months and a day before the vote.

Does anyone seriously doubt that after the 2004 elections there will be efforts to lengthen the ban from 60 days to 90 days or even 120 days? Why stop there? The nature of government is to seek to expand its power, and as government regulation of political speech increases, our freedom is decreased.

Second, the same logic will be applied sooner or later to political ads appearing in other media before an election. The message contained in a corrupting TV spot must also be corrupting when it appears in your daily newspaper, talk radio or the Internet. As Justice Thomas noted: "The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to see: outright regulation of the press."

Paul Greenberg: Bad day for the First Amendment

And now the court has let the most powerful of American interest groups - incumbent politicians - have their way with the First Amendment. Wednesday's message to the mere people was clear: Shut up, the court explained.

Once upon a better time, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that it was particularly important that the people be able to criticize their government just before an election. So it struck down an impertinent law that made it a crime to run an editorial about an election the morning the polls opened. Back then, the court understood that just before an election was the best time for people to speak out. This court thinks that's the best time to gag Americans.