Speech is No Longer Free

What does it mean to say that speech is free? What does it mean to say that the government "shall make no law" limiting the right to free speech"

I used to think it meant that everyone had a voice. That if you had an opinion, however wrong headed, however obnoxious or offensive, that you could express that opinion. That you could do so without having to ask permission or fear that the government would punish you. I used to think it meant that if you did not like what the government was doing you could say so without fear. I used to think that it meant that if you wanted to comment on people running for office you were free to do so.

I used to be right. Now, sadly, I am wrong.

I understand the need for some of the practical limitations we are forced to put on this process. If you are going to have a large rally or march you need to get permission. Not permission for what you want to say but for where and how. There are issues of safety and security for the participants and everyone else that need to be taken into consideration. I understand and accept that if I stand outside your house at 3:00 a.m. with a loud speaker expressing my political views I will probably be taken in by the police. Arrested not for what I was saying but for where when and how.

What I don't understand is how is it possible that in America you can now be fined for what you say.

From the New York Times (courtesy of Big Lizards who chose to focus on a different aspect of the story):

The FEC's unanimous decision to approve the agreements goes to the heart of campaign tactics that reached full bloom in the 2004 campaign. At issue was the emergence of nonprofit political groups, called 527s based on the section of the Internal Revenue Service code that governs their activities, operating as independent campaigns attacking Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry or President Bush.

The group listed as Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth will pay $299,500. In the 2004 campaign, the group spent $20.4 million criticizing Kerry's military record in Vietnam. Much of the group's claims about Kerry's service were never substantiated.

MoveOn.org Voter Fund will pay $150,000. The liberal organization challenged President Bush on various issues in the campaign. The group spent $14.6 million on television ads attacking Bush's record.

The League of Conservation Voters will pay $180,000. The group ran ads against Bush and other federal candidates, criticizing their stands on environmental issues.

The civil penalties were the first of this magnitude since the Supreme Court upheld most of the campaign finance law passed by Congress in 2002 that barred political parties from raising unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.

The FEC concluded that the three 527 organizations violated campaign finance laws because they expressly stated their desire to influence the presidential election in their fundraising, their public statements or their advertisements. Such activity, the FEC said, could only be conducted by political committee registered with the FEC that abide by contribution limits and public disclosure requirements.[emphasis added]

The were punished for what they said.

I do not understand how the law they "violated" was not struck down by the simple phrase "Congress shall make no law."

I do understand that this does not bode well for the future of freedom in this country. I understand this from the pride taken by the government in obliterating the First Amendment.

Commission Chairman Michael Toner said the penalties send a ''strong message'' and set "important touchstones for the future."

"This will have significant implications for the 2008 presidential race," he said.

Toner is no doubt right in his assessment. There will likely be significantly less speech in 2008.

Technorati Tags: Censorship, First Amendment, Free Speech, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, speech, Supreme Court

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 05:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment