The Censorship Known as Campaign Finance Reform


“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” -- SCOTUS

We’ve had two major rounds of  “campaign finance reform” violating the first amendment in the past forty years. Each one has turned out to INCREASE the very bribery and corruption they were supposed to end, becoming the very means of filtering money to candidates or officials, and promoting causes out of proportion with their real support.

This is because:

  • The Law of Unintended Consequences. Imposing simplistic “order”, by force, on a complex system always produces unexpected results, usually the opposite of what you intended.
  • Each one increased the power of government, making bribery of government that much more profitable
  • As long as government has power that is profitable, the private sector will pay WHATEVER it takes to obtain it. If the “reforms” made bribery more difficult, then it simply raised the cost, which made accepting bribes more profitable to the GOVERNMENT, increasing the incentive for officials to be corrupt.
  • By “organizing” the thing in question, through imposing a government bureaucracy on it, the “reforms” just create an orderly, static way of bribing government officials and calling it “legal”.

Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of…stupidity.

It is stupid to expect future, censorship-oriented “Campaign finance reform” to do anything but increase corruption and abuse, the way all previous ones did…even if it targets the speech of people who are associated with corporations.

Gingrich and Santorum are Enemy Combatants


Freedom of speech is one of the most important, fundamental, sacred American values.

Secrecy in government, on the other hand, is one of the worst forms of tyranny.

So when politicos like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum call for people fighting against government secrecy to be falsely classified as “enemy combatants”, “a terrorist organization”, or even to be assassinated or publicly executed, it’s pretty clear who the real enemy of America is.

What Wikileaks, and its founder Julian Assange, have vowed to do…and done, far more than most of us ever expected…is to bring the openness to American politics that politicians like Obama, McCain, and Bush promised but ended up opposing in almost all things.

They exposed Hillary Clinton ordering DNA samples and credit card information stolen from top UN officials.

They revealed a source of the bizarre push to attack Iran; it’s being ordered by the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia.

They showed that the US is secretly using its missiles and drones to slaughter people in foreign countries, while the tyrannical, abusive governments of those countries claimed credit.

The response to the whistle-blowing of these inexcusable coverups?

Above, we have a list of crimes against the American Constitution…but the criminals are named in the first half of each sentence, not the second.

Who is the Real Traitor: Wikileaks, or Their Attackers?


There is no more important expression to protect, than any truth embarrassing to the government.

That is, above all else, the freedom of speech the Founders wanted the First Amendment to preserve.

In fact, its big test, in 1798, was against the Alien and Sedition Acts, that were passed to silence those who would embarrass the US government.

This censorship so outraged the American public that it brought down the Adams administration, and destroyed the Federalist Party, that had dominated American politics up to that very point.

And that should tell you something about the kind of people who are wanting to censor Wikileaks, for the crime of publishing truth that is embarrassing to secretive liars in the US government.

And to those who would claim that Swedish/Australian Wikileaks isn’t protected:

The Founders clearly intended the entire Bill of Rights to restrain the US government in ALL actions, not just on Americans. Just ask Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Wherever the US government goes, the Constitution is there…it’s the sole source of its legitimacy. And the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

Not only do the Obama administration and neocons want to violate the 1st amendment, but they are promoting the tyranny of government secrecy.

If the government keeps an embarrassing secret from its own voters, this changes how they vote. That is the same violation of an election as if there were armed stormtroopers in your polling booth, changing your vote.

What is the excuse these attackers of the Constitution use as their excuse? That people who have lied to and kept secrets from the American voter might be endangered.

It is yet another example of Appeal to Cowardice, their favorite tool today.

These people, who assault the American ideals of truth and justice, who want to engage in the terrorism of a police state against political speech, are the real traitors.

You’re Censoring People, not Corporations


The moment a corporation stands up, like Frankenstein’s Monster, and starts talking without human intervention, I’ll agree that they might be censored.

But the fact is that a “corporation” is comprised of individuals, and THEY have their freedom of speech protected…even while they work for or own that corporation.

Censorship advocates, like judicial nominee Elena Kagan, and Liberal Republican John McCain, want to silence people, on the flimsy premise that they happen to be members of a corporation. They are violating the first amendment, because individuals are writing the copy that is being banned from publication.

You might as well censor them for belonging to a political party. We could just say “the constitution protects individuals, not parties”.

For that matter, publishing houses, newspapers, and blog hosting sites are corporations…everything they publish could be censored the same way.

You could censor the corporation if it tried to talk like some monstrous creation, but not the employees and management of the company who are actually buying political ads or other speech.

Fire in a Crowded Theater


Why You CAN Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater...

Censorship advocates say “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”, to prove that there are limits to free speech.

But the way they mean it, is not true.

You cannot actually be banned from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

In fact, you are completely free to yell fire in a crowded theater, and as long as there’s an actual fire, you probably be treated as a hero.

If there is NOT a fire, but everyone believes that you honestly thought there was, you shouldn’t be penalized, either.

But if you LIED about it, and it turns out that people were hurt, money lost, et cetera, then you can pay civil and (dubiously) criminal penalties.

But that’s not a restriction of free speech: It’s justice for others, who have been violated by fraud, which is a kind of coercion as evil as any other.

In other words, it’s hurting people with lies that brings penalties, not that your speech can rightfully be censored.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 749 other followers

%d bloggers like this: