Speech?
One of the things I've been worried about is freedom of speech. On some levels we seem to be doing very well, the Supreme Court has been almost surprising on their insistence on this.
Which is one of the reasons I've been going a little bit nuts about "campaign finance reform". So much of it seems to me to be directly opposed to any meaningful approach to free speech. I think I came to realize how out of the mainstream my opinion really was after a conversation with an old friend of mine, a very devout and intelligent liberal who was the father of my best friend. I had known him for years, and had always had great conversations. But this time, I was presented with the fact that to him, this was incontestable, this was not censorship in any way, this was just limiting the fat cats from influencing elections.
For me it just wasn't that simple. I've never really believed that I could prevent someone with money to burn, and the desire to use it to influence people, from doing so. Maybe I'm just naive. I always preferred transparency laws. Just let me see it, where's it comin' from, where is it goin' to. I suspect the net result was at first to make it harder for the money to flow, but now, it's flowin' free. BUT....yea, there's a but...now it's organizations on the left that have the hounds on their trail, the NAACP, and yes, they probably did violate the present "reform" laws. Is that really what we wanted?
From today's NYT:
"Roughly a dozen nonprofit organizations have publicly contended that government agencies and Congressional offices have used reviews, audits, investigations, law enforcement actions and the threat of a loss of federal money to discourage them from activities and advocacy that in any way challenge government policies, and nonprofit leaders say more are complaining quietly."
Now as a counterpoint, pandagon has a post up that points out (and takes a good shot at "media bias") that we heard the same kind of things from the right when Clinton was in office.
I have a different conclusion though, about whether or not this is "real"...I think it was inevitable. Once the balls started rolling, once law started to work its way in here, it's beginning to worry. Now I've never been one to be worried about too much free speech, but I have worried about to little. And while I can't say I'm a real supporter of the NAACP in its modern incarnation, I'm fairly sure I want them to be able to speak their peace. Even if that means I have to listen to the incessant harpy screeching of the far right.
After that talk with my friend...I felt a little less liberal. It thru me for a loop for a bit. Not too long though...I'm still trying to figure out what "liberal" really means. But if it doesn't mean free to speak, even if offensive...(well, actually especially offensive, 'cause that's always been my favorite kind) then there's something wrong.
Campaign finance reform, and similar efforts, have two edges on them, and I don't think I like the way either cut. I don't think I like things that make it difficult for the people to organize to express that speech.
Which is one of the reasons I've been going a little bit nuts about "campaign finance reform". So much of it seems to me to be directly opposed to any meaningful approach to free speech. I think I came to realize how out of the mainstream my opinion really was after a conversation with an old friend of mine, a very devout and intelligent liberal who was the father of my best friend. I had known him for years, and had always had great conversations. But this time, I was presented with the fact that to him, this was incontestable, this was not censorship in any way, this was just limiting the fat cats from influencing elections.
For me it just wasn't that simple. I've never really believed that I could prevent someone with money to burn, and the desire to use it to influence people, from doing so. Maybe I'm just naive. I always preferred transparency laws. Just let me see it, where's it comin' from, where is it goin' to. I suspect the net result was at first to make it harder for the money to flow, but now, it's flowin' free. BUT....yea, there's a but...now it's organizations on the left that have the hounds on their trail, the NAACP, and yes, they probably did violate the present "reform" laws. Is that really what we wanted?
From today's NYT:
"Roughly a dozen nonprofit organizations have publicly contended that government agencies and Congressional offices have used reviews, audits, investigations, law enforcement actions and the threat of a loss of federal money to discourage them from activities and advocacy that in any way challenge government policies, and nonprofit leaders say more are complaining quietly."
Now as a counterpoint, pandagon has a post up that points out (and takes a good shot at "media bias") that we heard the same kind of things from the right when Clinton was in office.
I have a different conclusion though, about whether or not this is "real"...I think it was inevitable. Once the balls started rolling, once law started to work its way in here, it's beginning to worry. Now I've never been one to be worried about too much free speech, but I have worried about to little. And while I can't say I'm a real supporter of the NAACP in its modern incarnation, I'm fairly sure I want them to be able to speak their peace. Even if that means I have to listen to the incessant harpy screeching of the far right.
After that talk with my friend...I felt a little less liberal. It thru me for a loop for a bit. Not too long though...I'm still trying to figure out what "liberal" really means. But if it doesn't mean free to speak, even if offensive...(well, actually especially offensive, 'cause that's always been my favorite kind) then there's something wrong.
Campaign finance reform, and similar efforts, have two edges on them, and I don't think I like the way either cut. I don't think I like things that make it difficult for the people to organize to express that speech.
posted by Johnny Lightheart at 2:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home