- Already firebombed once: “Satirical French Magazine Publishes Caricatures Of Mohammed, White House Rebukes.” [Mediaite] More calls for punishing makers of anti-Muslim YouTube video for supposed incitement [Ann Althouse on Sarah Chayes, earlier here and here; also, the late Christopher Hitchens on “fire in a crowded theater” arguments] “The people who instigate these protests seek a very particular goal: an extension of Egyptian and Pakistani style blasphemy laws into the West.” [David Frum]
- “$60,000 Verdict for Blogging the Truth About A Person Intending to Get Him Fired – Reversed” [Volokh]
- Judge closes probe of opinion-maker influence in Google-Oracle battle [The Recorder, earlier]
- Weight-loss device promoter files, then drops suit against Public Citizen, consumerist website Fair Warning [Paul Alan Levy, Fair Warning]
- “How Ag Gag Laws Suppress Free Speech and the Marketplace of Ideas” [Baylen Linnekin, earlier here, etc.]
- Big government Republicans in charge: “GOP Platform Changed To Now Target All Forms Of Pornography” [Andrew Kirell, Mediaite; Volokh]
- Missouri activist starts website criticizing local cops and soon the department’s halls display what looks very much like a “Wanted” poster of him [Eapen Thampy, Agitator]
Posts Tagged ‘free speech’
Lawmaker tries to shut up linebacker, cont’d
I’ve got a post at Maryland for All Families following up on the free-speech controversy that flared up when Del. Emmett Burns, a Democratic lawmaker in Annapolis, wrote to the owner of the Baltimore Ravens demanding he silence linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, a vocal advocate of same-sex marriage (earlier). Discussion elsewhere: Rob Tisinai/Box Turtle Bulletin, Amy Alkon, Howard Wasserman/Prawfs, BaltimoreRavens.com (team’s front office supports Ayanbadejo), David Frum, and a First Amendment analysis from Hans Bader.
Update: Amid widespread public support for Ayanbadejo, Del. Burns has now backed off his attempt to muzzle the linebacker [Baltimore Sun] Did any prominent critics of same-sex marriage speak up in favor of the Ravens linebacker’s free speech? If not, they missed an opportunity to underline the principled nature of their oft-voiced concern that those on the “wrong” side of the marriage issue will face official retaliation.
Del. Emmett Burns to Baltimore Ravens: silence that troublesome player
Wow. Del. Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore County), an opponent of same-sex marriage, fired off a letter to the owner [PDF] of the Baltimore Ravens on legislative stationery demanding that he silence Brendon Ayanbadejo, an outspoken marriage advocate. Pretty much every conservative commentator in America (properly) denounced the Boston mayor and Chicago alderman for menacing Chick-Fil-A. I hope some of them will speak up against this abuse of government office as well. [NBC Sports Pro Football Talk]
More, Eugene Volokh finds it “a pretty inappropriate thing for a legislator, speaking in a way that stresses his role as legislator, to say to a private employer. There is no express threat of retaliation here, but such letters to private businesspeople — who often have to deal with legislature on various regulatory issues — tend to carry something of an implied threat, especially when they stress the author’s legislative position.” Note also that what Burns is “requesting” in his letter is accompanied by a peremptory demand for an “immediate response.” And update: following an outcry in which the public overwhelmingly took the player’s side, Del. Burns has backed down.
Chicken scraps
- I joined hosts Mark Newgent and Andrew Langer of RedMaryland on their BlogTalkRadio show Monday evening to talk about the Chick-Fil-A furor, the efforts of politicians in Boston and Chicago to use regulatory permissions to push the company around, and the resulting lessons for political and economic freedom; I went on to discuss my efforts to rally opinion in favor of Maryland’s new same-sex marriage law. You can listen here or here (UStream).
- Relatedly, here is Ted Frank’s comment: “Every chicken sandwich you don’t buy deprives anti-gay organizations of approximately $0.0001. Probably less than that. Or, you can do what I did and donate some real money that might actually make a difference to [Marylanders for Marriage Equality] to campaign about the gay marriage initiative on the ballot in that state.”
- “Unwise…won’t work.” The New York Times, oft indignant on other topics, seems rather tepid in criticizing the various city halls’ attacks on speech;
- No united flock: the restaurants in question, many run by strong-minded independent franchisees, seem to be politically a various bunch themselves.
- Speaking of non-united flocks, I think the ACLU’s Illinois affiliate may have a thing or two to teach its Massachusetts affiliate. Following the Chicago alderman’s threats to block the restaurant, ACLU of Illinois attorney Adam Schwartz was both forceful and correct: “what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words. … We believe this is clear cut.” On the other hand, Carol Rose of the ACLU of Massachusetts strangely dismissed the Boston controversy as “little more than a war of words – which is protected by the First Amendment as core speech,” as if the Mayor had merely subjected the sandwich chain to a volley of verbal abuse, without more. Perhaps Ms. Rose wrote the piece while glancing only at Mayor Menino’s official letter to Dan Cathy, which stays generally within “war of words” territory, and was unaware of the July 20 coverage in the Boston Herald, which quoted Menino thus: “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies.” That’s no more a mere “war of words” than “If you run that editorial, I’ll have you arrested.”
- More coverage: Tom Palmer Cato podcast; Hans Bader of CEI First Amendment analysis; David Boaz, Roger Pilon and Brad Smith at Politico; must-read Glenn Greenwald column; earlier here, etc.
- And: “By handing Chick-fil-A a valid grievance, Menino and his ilk rallied popular support for the company” [Josh Barro, Boston Globe]
- Yet more: Pressure group friendly to Chicago alderman filed antidiscrimination complaint based on chain execs’ speech [Volokh; HuffPo (“negotiation”)] Some further thoughts on where the First Amendment’s relevant in the whole affair, and where it isn’t [Jim Huffman, Daily Caller]
Free speech roundup
- Political bloggers prevail in cases where Maryland, Massachusetts judges sought to enjoin them from blogging [Hans Bader, Popehat on Maryland and Massachusetts cases, Bader and Popehat updating Berkshire case] Who might have “SWATted” Aaron Walker? [Patterico] No point asking Salon’s Alex Pareene [same]
- Supreme Court’s fractured First Amendment theories in U.S. v. Alvarez, the Stolen Valor case [Eugene Volokh] Ruling could benefit commercial speakers in cases like Nike [Richard Samp, WLF] Court got it wrong, says Richard Epstein [Hoover]
- Controversial cartoonist sends many takedown demands to critics who reproduce her work in the course of criticizing it [Rob Beschizza, BoingBoing, Popehat]
- Interview with Charles Brownstein, who directs the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund [Nick Farr, Abnormal Use]
- “Even pointing people toward that blog could constitute further defamation.” [Popehat on case of Ranaan Katz (Miami Heat), more, PoL]
- “Malaysian Arrest of Borders Clerk for Selling Allegedly Blasphemous Book” [Volokh] “Debunk a ‘Miracle’ – Go to Jail for Blasphemy In India” [Ronald Bailey]
- Careful about pouncing on The Oatmeal, you might suffer a quicksand-like fate [Greenfield, Paul Alan Levy,Popehat]
Michael Kinsley: Citizens United was “correctly decided”
“Liberals ought to show the chief justice that we too can acknowledge a principle even when we don’t agree with the result.” [LA Times] Given how execrated the Citizens United decision is on the left, should we expect it to cause a rift in the ACLU, which supports it? [Wasserman, Prawfs]
Free speech roundup
- “Is advocating the paleo diet against the law?” [Brian Doherty on N.C. blogger case; earlier]
- Free speech prof Volokh to lend pro bono help in Montgomery County, Md. blogger prior-restraint case [Popehat; earlier here, here, here, and here] Members of Congress want “SWATting” of bloggers investigated [Arlette Saenz/ABC, Politico, Washington Times]
- A FAQ on anti-SLAPP laws [Ken at Popehat]
- Judge tosses World Net Daily suit over birther parody [Volokh, earlier]
- “Britain’s New Libel Bill: Better on Libel Tourism, But Worse on Anonymous Online Speech” [Citizen Media Law] “What Is an Internet Troll?” [Guardian]
- “Doctor sues patient over web comments” [Orlando Sentinel]
- $3 million jury award in libel case against Norfolk Virginian-Pilot [Romenesko]
June 1 roundup
- Most embarrassing lawsuit Hall of Fame (plaintiff’s decedent division) [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, cardiology med-mal; more]
- Latest twist in ongoing speech-chilling saga worthy of attention from PEN: attorney Aaron Walker is charged in Rockville, Md. after a court interprets his blogging about an adversary as a violation of a peace order [Hans Bader and more, Eugene Volokh, Scott Greenfield with comments from Maryland lawyer Bruce Godfrey, Patterico, Popehat, and many others; earlier here, here, and here.] And Ken at Popehat, in a perhaps not unrelated development, puts out a call for a pro bono criminal lawyer to protect a blogger in M.D. Fla. and M.D. Tenn.
- California lament: Facebook must pay hefty bribe to be allowed to hire more employees [Coyote]
- “The burdens of e-discovery” [Ted Frank/PoL]
- Strangest judicial campaign video of the year? [Jim Foley, candidate for Washington Court of Appeals, Olympia; Above the Law, followup]
- Massive wave of disability claims among returning vets [AP]
- We keep loading up company compliance/ethics folk with new regulatory responsibilities. How’s that working out? [Compliance Week]
“‘People’s Rights Amendment’ Would Knock Out People’s Rights”
George Will gets to the essence of this grotesque assault on civil liberties, fed by demagoguery over the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision:
McGovern [Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.] stresses that his amendment decrees that “all corporate entities — for-profit and nonprofit alike” — have no constitutional rights. So Congress — and state legislatures and local governments — could regulate to the point of proscription political speech, or any other speech, by the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association, NARAL Pro-Choice America or any of the other tens of thousands of nonprofit corporate advocacy groups, including political parties and campaign committees.
Newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations — and most religious institutions — are corporate entities. McGovern’s amendment would strip them of all constitutional rights.
Incredibly, versions of this radical rights-stripping measure has been endorsed through resolutions by the state legislatures of Vermont, Hawaii, and New Mexico, with backing from groups like Public Citizen. [Ilya Shapiro and Kathleen Hunker, Cato; Hans Bader, CEI; earlier] More: Professor Bainbridge (“utterly moronic”)] Among sponsors of this extraordinary measure: Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), David Cicilline (R.I.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), John Conyers, Jr. (Mich.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Eliot Engel (N.Y.), Sam Farr (Calif.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Gene Green (Tex.), Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), Janice Hahn (Calif.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (Ill.), Walter B. Jones, Jr. (N.C.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Christopher Murphy (Ct.), Richard Neal (Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), John Olver (Mass.), Chellie Pingree (Maine), Louise McIntosh Slaughter (N.Y.), Adam Smith (Wash.), John Tierney (Mass.), and Peter Welch (Vt.). Murphy is running for an open U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut.
Free speech roundup
- “People’s Rights Amendment” paves way for government control of media and trampling of many other rights. Is your Rep a sponsor? [Volokh, more, Somin]
- Indian skeptic charged with blasphemy for revealing secret behind “miracle” of weeping cross [Doctorow] “Arab world’s most famous comedian” jailed in Egypt on charges of “insulting Islam” [Volokh]
- “Is the Real Intent of Cyber-Bullying Laws to Eliminate Criticism of Politicians?” [Coyote]
- Timothy Kincaid: why I oppose the California “don’t say ex-gay” therapy-ban bill [BTB]
- More on unreasonable IRS demands of tea party groups seeking nonprofit status [Stoll, Anne Sorock/Bill Jacobson, Houston Chronicle, earlier]
- Denmark Supreme Court, 7-0, strikes down conviction of Lars Hedegaard for criticizing Islam in own home [Mark Steyn] Institute of Public Affairs launches campaign to defend free speech in Australia [Andrew Bolt case earlier] Free speech in Britain looking the worse for wear [Cooke, NRO] Belgian court throws out lawsuit seeking ban on allegedly racist “Tintin” comic book [Volokh] Group files criminal complaint against Swiss magazine over cover story on Roma crime [Spiegel]