My friend, Peter, is at it again. He’s the dude with a geographic license to wear loud, floral print shirts that don’t tuck in. We used to be friendly competitors in the email security space. But we both switched careers long ago and we are now fast friends at a distance.
I said “at a distance” because we are separated by both land and politics. At 5100 miles (8200 km), we are geography separated as far as two people in USA can be! And the political distance between a bible-toting redneck and a blue-blooded Libertarian is nearly as great! Actually, I am exaggerating the metaphor… Neither of us is at the fringe—but as the pendulum swings, we each tend to be adrift from the center!
I have always been impressed with Peter’s ability to initiate passionate and popular debate. While this Blog elicits between zero and ten comments for each article, a simple post on Peter’s Facebook wall gets 75 responses, often within hours. His capacity to generate discussion and debate not only speaks to Peter’s breadth of contacts, but more importantly to a keen sense of hot-button issues!
Last week, Peter asked his friends to opine on Hillary Clinton. He was critical of her desire to vet Supreme Court nominees based on their willingness to restrict free speech rights for campaign commercials that slander a candidate in proximity to an election.
His question refers to this article. [Click below to read in a new window]
Actually, the use of the term slander is my spin. Slander invokes a very different legal bar, and it is not a form of protected speech. But Hillary openly opposes the airing of any critical opinion in the days leading up to an election.
If you and your friends pool your resources into a corporation making a movie that comes out 30 days prior to an election criticizing candidate Ted Cruz, should you be arrested? If you answered “No”, then I hope you also agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United.
A Wild Duck response…
I have read and understand the Powerline Blog piece on Citizens United. I fully agree with the Supreme Court decision. And, of course, I believe that Clinton should avoid a litmus test that buttresses her effort to thwart our First Amendment.
My initial reaction was to wonder if anyone feels differently? Who can argue with free speech, especially when it comes to politics. Perhaps I live among a small circle of friends, but I can’t think of anyone—regardless of their politics—who would expect or desire a different outcome. (I am assuming that the Powerline article was not slanted—or lacking some germane point!)
Big Business, Money and Free Speech
What if big money backs free speech? Surely, that type of speech should be restricted. Right? Not on your life! The argument that organizations are not people and that they shouldn’t enjoy basic rights just doesn’t hold water. And the argument that money buys elections is just daffy!…
What are we? Idiots and sheep?! There is no such thing as “buying” an election. Not in a country with a free press, free speech and the Internet. Of course, access to money helps any persuasive campaign, just as a well-funded ad campaign helps Coca-Cola sell more soda than Fred’s regional cola. But, when was the last time that you or a family member voted for a candidate because she had more TV ads? If you ask me, modern electioneering is comprised mostly of negative attack ads. I suspect thst expensive messages leading up to an election are more likely to dissuade voters than they are to “buy” votes.
Hillary as President
I have not yet formed a position for or against Hillary as a presidential candidate. But, I would give her a pass for being pig-headed on this issue, at least in public discourse. The ramifications of free speech have hit too close for her to think straight. I doubt that she will find a credible candidate for Supreme Court Judge that would vote to prohibit an opinion piece, regardless of its sponsors or timing.
On Second Thought
Here, at Wild Duck, I rarely equivocate. My opinions are as pig-headed and bull nosed as Hillary’s. But once in a while, I acknowledge that there may be another side to an issue. (Not the free speech issue. On that, I stand firm). But, on assuming that a candidate—if elected—would not act on their radical or religious beliefs. On this point, I can no longer vote with smug assurance…
I once gave Republicans a pass on the issue of a litmus test. I assumed that they would never hand pick ANTI-choice justices or ANTI separation of church-state justices. I thought it impossible that any educated individual could be a bible thumper. I was wrong. Clearly, some politicians and judges mix religion with politics or seek to force our sisters and daughters into back room abortions.
And so, Peter, I shall reflect on your question a bit more! Regards from your slightly more liberal friend on the mainland.
Like Peter Kay, Ellery occasionally pontificates on politics of the day. But,
unlike Peter, Ellery is apt to opine from a liberal or Libertarian perspective.