The following quote was included by George Erickson in the Lake Superior Freethinkers Newsletter for March 2013. I found a more complete extract by a Google search.
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and private schools entirely supported by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."
- President Ulysses S. Grant, Des Moines, Iowa, 1876
From "Ulysses S. Grant: the Separation of Church and School", Encyclopedia Britannica Profiles: The American Presidency http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116880
The rest of the speech in the article is worth reading. In some parts he sounds like modern Republicans, but in other parts he is far removed from what modern Republicans practice.
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Monday, May 28, 2012
Freedom of anonymous speech?
I was inspired to write the following by "How I Became Stephen Colbert's Lawyer -- And Joined the Fight to Rescue Our Democracy from Citizens United", Trevor Potter, 2012-05-23, speech at the Annual Meeting of th American Law Institute.
I wonder what the writers of Bill of Rights would think of the Supreme Court interpreting the first amendment as "freedom of anonymous speech". Speech is meant to be heard. If it is heard, those hearing it know who said it.
Second, if someone started a whisper campaign that disparaged you or your business and you found out who and were able to afford the right lawyer, wouldn't you probably win a defamation case?
If you started a campaign making false (or even damagingly true) accusations against a large corporation, wouldn't its lawyers be doing their best to get you into court?
So, why do large corporations or wealthy donors get to make scurrilous, misleading statements without identifying themselves or being held accountable for libel?
Oh, I forgot. Although corporations are people, they are super-people who are above the law.
I wonder what the writers of Bill of Rights would think of the Supreme Court interpreting the first amendment as "freedom of anonymous speech". Speech is meant to be heard. If it is heard, those hearing it know who said it.
Second, if someone started a whisper campaign that disparaged you or your business and you found out who and were able to afford the right lawyer, wouldn't you probably win a defamation case?
If you started a campaign making false (or even damagingly true) accusations against a large corporation, wouldn't its lawyers be doing their best to get you into court?
So, why do large corporations or wealthy donors get to make scurrilous, misleading statements without identifying themselves or being held accountable for libel?
Oh, I forgot. Although corporations are people, they are super-people who are above the law.
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Abuse of power; abuse of freedom
Many complain about an overreaching government, but most of these complaints are really about regulation of overreaching corporations who take actions against "the common welfare". But these critics are generally silent when an overreaching government acts against an innocent citizen.
See "Free After 25 Years: A Tale of Murder and Injustice", Wade Goodwyn, NPR Weekend Edition, 2012-04-28. This is a case of a sheriff in Texas deciding that a husband was guilty of murdering his wife and ignoring or hiding all evidence that proved the contrary. Luckily the husband was not executed. But because the real killer was not sought out, the real killer murdered a second man's wife.
Many novelists, like John Lescroart, make a career of writing about false accusations and rushes to judgment on circumstantial evidence. We can't draw conclusions from novels about frequency of false accusations in real life, but it does make one wonder. The above case proves that false accusations exist. The Innocence Project is winning many exonerations. Since 1992 they have exonerated 200 people based on DNA and other evidence that was not presented at a trial. The Innocence Project believes this is just the tip of the iceberg. \
Another abuse is the overreaction to many demonstrations, including pepper-spraying, clubbing, and dragging away. This leads to another kind of abuse, abuse of freedom.
"Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble…". Does peaceably assembling include filling a public space so that others cannot move through that space? Does peaceably assembling include camping out? Some respond that they need these demonstrations to have their voices heard. I wonder if these people were in the less than 50 percent who showed up to vote in 2010 or were in the more than 50 percent who didn't show up to vote in 2010.
The First Amendment also includes freedom of speech. Does freedom of speech include buying up large portions of the broadcast spectrum and broadcasting half-truths, innuendo, and lies? Does freedom of speech include using a bullhorn at a demonstration turned up so loud that others cannot even be heard by the person next to them. Or by the whole group shouting so loud that others cannot be heard?
In summary, power is given for authorities to govern, not rule; freedoms are given to put a check on authorities, not to govern by mob rule.
See "Free After 25 Years: A Tale of Murder and Injustice", Wade Goodwyn, NPR Weekend Edition, 2012-04-28. This is a case of a sheriff in Texas deciding that a husband was guilty of murdering his wife and ignoring or hiding all evidence that proved the contrary. Luckily the husband was not executed. But because the real killer was not sought out, the real killer murdered a second man's wife.
Many novelists, like John Lescroart, make a career of writing about false accusations and rushes to judgment on circumstantial evidence. We can't draw conclusions from novels about frequency of false accusations in real life, but it does make one wonder. The above case proves that false accusations exist. The Innocence Project is winning many exonerations. Since 1992 they have exonerated 200 people based on DNA and other evidence that was not presented at a trial. The Innocence Project believes this is just the tip of the iceberg. \
Another abuse is the overreaction to many demonstrations, including pepper-spraying, clubbing, and dragging away. This leads to another kind of abuse, abuse of freedom.
"Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble…". Does peaceably assembling include filling a public space so that others cannot move through that space? Does peaceably assembling include camping out? Some respond that they need these demonstrations to have their voices heard. I wonder if these people were in the less than 50 percent who showed up to vote in 2010 or were in the more than 50 percent who didn't show up to vote in 2010.
The First Amendment also includes freedom of speech. Does freedom of speech include buying up large portions of the broadcast spectrum and broadcasting half-truths, innuendo, and lies? Does freedom of speech include using a bullhorn at a demonstration turned up so loud that others cannot even be heard by the person next to them. Or by the whole group shouting so loud that others cannot be heard?
In summary, power is given for authorities to govern, not rule; freedoms are given to put a check on authorities, not to govern by mob rule.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress
I left the following comment on OccupyVotingBooths Facebook community to an item on the arrest of Josh Fox taking pictures of a Congressional hearing. The article is "The Arrest of Josh Fox: What Are They Trying to Hide When They Deny Our Right to Take Pictures?"
This all is a slippery slope of intent. If cameras were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then how can we positively say that use of a camera is a First Amendment right? Since multiple-shot, concealable weapons were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then there is no Constitutional right to conceal and carry. Either we have to interpret the Constitution to cover modern technology or we have to interpret it to not give rights of use of modern technology. As it is, we are interpreting it to suit our own interests. Nothing new there.
What we can assume about the arrest of Josh Fox is that some members of Congress have something to hide.
This all is a slippery slope of intent. If cameras were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then how can we positively say that use of a camera is a First Amendment right? Since multiple-shot, concealable weapons were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then there is no Constitutional right to conceal and carry. Either we have to interpret the Constitution to cover modern technology or we have to interpret it to not give rights of use of modern technology. As it is, we are interpreting it to suit our own interests. Nothing new there.
What we can assume about the arrest of Josh Fox is that some members of Congress have something to hide.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Too much free speech?
I've long had in my mind a quote that the answer to too much freedom of speech (the press) is more freedom of speech (the press). I've thought is Winston Churchill but could find no reference. I've thought it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., but could find to reference.
From looking at some articles related to the Citizens United case, I think I found the context.
It was in Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). For her activities in the Communist Labor Party, Miss Whitney was convicted to prison based on the Criminal Syndicalism Act of California. The U.S. Supreme Court let the judgement of the state court of appeals stand. Justice Sanford wrote the opinion.
Justice Brandeis concurred but with much more nuance; Justice Holmes joined in this opinion.
Brandeis wrote that the mere statement of an action in the far future does not constitute a threat. He did concur that the lower court had established that the threat was more imminent.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it."
I think it is worthwhile struggling through all the reasoning. The quote I used is the only place "more speech" is used, and so your browser should find it in the text.
From looking at some articles related to the Citizens United case, I think I found the context.
It was in Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). For her activities in the Communist Labor Party, Miss Whitney was convicted to prison based on the Criminal Syndicalism Act of California. The U.S. Supreme Court let the judgement of the state court of appeals stand. Justice Sanford wrote the opinion.
Justice Brandeis concurred but with much more nuance; Justice Holmes joined in this opinion.
Brandeis wrote that the mere statement of an action in the far future does not constitute a threat. He did concur that the lower court had established that the threat was more imminent.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it."
I think it is worthwhile struggling through all the reasoning. The quote I used is the only place "more speech" is used, and so your browser should find it in the text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)