Speedkill

I once posted funny or insane letters to our local paper on here fairly regularly. Sadly, the Chronicle stopped putting them online and I stopped reading the paper offline (the two aren’t connected, by the way). I happened to have a free copy of today’s paper left at my doorstep today, however, so I took a look at what I’ve been missing. I wasn’t disappointed; there’s a staggeringly stupid one in there today. It’s courtesy of Peter Arnone, a name that’s vaguely familiar, likely from other crazy letters.

Where is the ACLU when it is needed most? A courageous individual is standing alone in the fight of his life for his First Amendment rights. His free speech has been muzzled. He has been suspended from his job. His livelihood is further threatened with possible firing. How can the ACLU sit idly by and allow this champion of free expression be crucified by the media and millions of angry Americans?

Why would the ACLU defend the freedom of expression of pornographers, but not this individual? Why would it fight for the rights of activists disrupting military funerals and confronting distraught family members with offensive language, but not this individual?

At this point, I was quite curious about who this individual was. That’s a lot of buildup. Let’s just say the individual and his situation doesn’t live up to Arnone’s rhetoric:

Why is the ACLU not coming to the defense of Don Imus? The ACLU has roughly $200 million in its legal fund. So, why is it not suing NBC for suspending him? Why is it not rallying national support for his constitutional rights and the rights of all Americans? Perhaps, Scott Crichton, Montana director of the ACLU can enlighten us.

Yes, he’s talking about Don Imus. Don Imus. I believe the proper response to this is, “are you high?” No one’s really so stupid as to misunderstand freedom of speech so badly, right? Should you even be allowed to vote if you say something this dumb?

Is it really that hard to grasp that NBC is not a part of the government and can’t violate anyone’s free speech by denying that person a platform for his or her views? If Imus had been arrested or fined, Arnone would have a point. He wasn’t, so there’s no point. It’s just gibberish.

The rest of the letter goes on about how the ACLU wants moral anarchy. It’s painful to read.

I have to disagree with this. Our streets are dangerous. Roving gangs of gamblers are a menace to decent people everywhere.

Besides, isn’t California as dangerous as Iraq or something? I remember hearing that somewhere. They have a lot of that kind of equipment over there.

It’s right here. Enjoy.

This kind of thing is a bit frightening. Laws against “defamation of religion?” Gross.

Do we ever see people proposing laws against defamation of liberalism, conservatism, or naive realism? It’s a little strange that we have a group of philosophical positions that is somehow sacrosanct, isn’t it? Islam is pretty worthless. Whoops, I’ve insulted the “dignity” of a religion. Someone fine me. Who the hell thinks that’s logical?

Religion is an idea. It’s not some magical belief that requires a protective bubble in order to avoid offending its adherents’ delicate sensibilities. Shutting down speech critical of it is not a reasonable limit on free speech, it’s the destruction of free speech.

Jay and Colby both have come out supporting SB 15, a bill in the Montana legislature that would outlaw protests at funerals. Pogie disagrees.

I’m on Pogie’s side on this one. Colby says

I don’t think the constitutionality argument holds up for much the same reason a person is not permitted to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre; some free speech is destructive and not protected.

Of course, destructive is somewhat subjective. The ‘shouting fire’ example is an example of this sentiment, from Oliver Wendell Holmes:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Now, that case was overturned in favor of a stricter test:

the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Do funeral protests pass this test? I don’t think the funeral protests are intentionally inciting violence. They’re meant to create intense emotional responses and get a message out, but violence is something of a leap. I’m sure they’re aware no one really feels sorry for them if they get their asses kicked. Protests in general aren’t meant to incite violence and funeral protests don’t seem much different. Also, violence has occurred at only a handful of the 80 or so military funerals they’ve protested. So it doesn’t look like the protests are directed to inciting violence, nor that likely to produce such action. Let’s remember that violence accompanies many protests, such as the WTO protests, for example. We should also remember that the WTO protests do contain elements that are attempting to incite violence. I think it’s best to air on the side of caution here and not start restricting speech unless it becomes an obvious danger.

Colby goes on to say this:

I don’t agree with Juneau that this situation should be allowed, and here is why. No matter how bad this dead murdered might have been, he/she still had friends, parents, etc who deserve the right to grieve; they didn’t do anything wrong, and may have loved the person. It is the same logic that I used to refute the death penalty for obviously guilty people, when you kill somebody you don’t punish just that person, but everybody who loves that inmate. Everybody deserves the right to grieve for their dead, even if the dead were terrible people.

Pogie, however, has this to say:

Finally, I think the most important reason to reject the law is that there are times when funerals should be protested. The recent death of General Pinochet in Chile offers an important example. Protected from prosecution his entire life by a corrupt government, Pinochet was insulated from protest. While protesting/celebrating his death may not have had an impact on the dead dictator, it did offer important closure to his victims:

Both are reasonable positions, I think. I’m more inclined to agree with Colby that you shouldn’t protest funerals. But why, with these two reasonable positions, should I favor outlawing the one I disagree with? I try not to do things like that. Furthermore, no one is stopping people from grieving. A group is upsetting those grieving, but not stopping them. I think that’s a key point. Do you really have a right not to be upset? Sometimes people need to be upset. The current military protests by Westboro don’t qualify, but that’s a value judgment I’d rather not have my government make.

As an aside, one of Jay’s commenters says there’s a First Amendment caveat for “hate speech.” There isn’t and it’s rather frightening that people don’t know that.

Ugh. The University of Central Florida and Clemson University both have tried out “free speech zones” on their campuses. Clemson’s backed off, but UCF hasn’t. There are apparently others, too.

*cue scary music*

So says the AP.

The ACLU, self-described as an organization committed to protecting rights set forth in the Constitution, has developed a plan for “strategic investment” in Florida, Mississippi, Texas and New Mexico, as well as Montana. About $10 million will be divided among the states in the coming five years, executive Anthony Romero said from New York, where the ACLU is based.

In Montana, a libertarian bent in part of the populace is among the reasons for investing in the state, Romero said. People of a libertarian persuasion are people with whom the ACLU stands a good chance of building alliances based on shared beliefs about issues such as government surveillance and the scope of police powers, he said.

That’s probably accurate to some extent, but let’s face it, the ACLU has been demonized to a startling degree. They’ll face an uphill battle here.

“There is some common ground (with the ACLU) but there also are some vast disagreements,” said Stan Jones of Bozeman, who ran for the U.S. Senate last month as a Libertarian Party candidate and drew 2.6 percent of the vote. Jones said members of his party generally agree with the ACLU that the federal Patriot Act is unconstitutionally far-reaching, but many would disagree with the organization about religious freedom.

You know, I don’t think that’s accurate. Libertarians seem to have a fairly strict view of church-state separation. Obviously the ACLU has a very strict view, but I don’t see a huge gulf there. It still seems like Jones is a fairly unorthodox Libertarian; the fact that he’s against abortion, gay marriage, and believes the ACLU are somehow weak on religious freedom shows me that he’s a pretty conservative Libertarian. But what the hell do I know about Libertarians in this state?

The state organization is getting a pretty solid boost:

The ACLU in New York said that of the $10 million, Montana stands to receive about $1.2 million over a four-year span, with fifth-year funding still to be determined. The Montana budget was about $300,000 last year.

Go check out the Montana ACLU.

Just thought you should know.

Illegal Police Entry Doesn’t Bar Evidence, Court Says

June 15 (Bloomberg) — Prosecutors can use evidence seized by police during a home search even though officers violated the Constitution by failing to knock or announce their presence before entering, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The justices, voting 5-4 in a Michigan case, today put new limits on the so-called exclusionary rule, which in some circumstances bars prosecutors from using the product of an illegal search. The majority said the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to violations of the “knock and announce” requirement for home searches.

So there’s no real disincentive for the police to not just barge into your house. That’s nice.

Of course, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of, right?

(via Balloon Juice)

Morris Dees is giving a lecture here next month. I’ll probably go check it out, even though it costs money. The promotional poster for the lecture includes this line:

Using the law like a sword, Dees has dismantled hate groups…

That’s probably a good example of why he receives some of the criticism he does. Hate groups shouldn’t be dismantled through the law unless they are involved in criminal acts. Hate groups are often (almost always, even) involved in those sorts of acts, but I still don’t like the assumption that they should be attacked legally just for being hate groups.

Outside of that, Dees and the SPLC have done a good job informing and educating us about the activities of hate groups, so we can fight them in the realm of ideas. That is to be commended.