Who cares about Ben Franklin, he was a nobody

Good news from Pierre, again. I’m starting to like the 2o10 legislative session more and more everyday.

Maybe they shouldn’t have asked a lawyer that has had trouble in the past interpreting the 1st Amendment to write legislation for them . . . I’m just saying.

A House committee killed a bill that would have required those who operate Internet sites to keep records so they could identify people who anonymously contribute defamatory comments.

One of our greatest founding fathers, Franklin, often railed against England in anonymous letters to newspapers. Just imagine if Franklin feared anon dissent and did nothing? Where would our country be today. Do modern day lawmakers have any clue about history? Apparently not.

Back in 2001 Todd was willing to defend the Brookings Arts Council as a board member of the SD Arts Council. Joy Crane ultimately got Todd to resign on the board because of the extreme conflict of interest that would have existed defending the BAC against someone he is supposed to be representing, a member of the Arts Council, Crane herself. That, and his blatant disregard for the First Amendment. Joy won her battle, I guess the BAC got a little nervous when they started getting letters from anti-censorship lawyers in New York and the ACLU.

As we insisted in our letter to Ms. Knutzen (jointly signed by NCAC, David Green of the First Amendment Project and Jennifer Ring of the ACLU of the Dakotas), randomly applying the vague and subjective standard of appropriateness to work that clearly constitutes protected speech raises serious constitutional concerns. The viewpoint expressed in “Chastity Belt” might well be unpopular and potentially controversial for Brookings, SD. But it is precisely to protect speech that is controversial or even offensive that the First Amendment exists. And, as the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed: “If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 1989)

Read the comments, they are great. I agree with Cory, if I am not making one single penny from anonymous people trying to defame politicians on my website, how does that make me responsible, and what is my personal gain? I have deleted comments in the past that are either slanderous or just really, really bad, but like Cory says, why should I be the speech cops for Pierre? This is just an attack on the blogs and they have suckered a former(?) blogger into writing the legislation to make the rest of us feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

Image; Pat Powers, Dakota War College

I have stayed pretty quiet on this issue over the last couple of days (because the legislation would be impossible to enforce and quite frankly, it is unconstitutional), but I think it’s time I said something. I have often told politicians that I use sarcasm on my blog to ‘make observations’ in an attempt that someone can produce the facts, hopefully the party I am skewering. I will give any politician an opportunity to set the record straight, libel and slander isn’t a good thing, and if I wronged you, prove it. But that defense usually never happens. Why? Maybe because it is true? Maybe because they think they are above me? Maybe they don’t know how to work their email? Who knows, who cares. When someone tries to slander me, I defend myself. What I can’t understand is why politicians don’t do the same? The Gargoyle Leader tried to paint me as the ‘anti-pavilion’ a few years back because I opposed some policies of the Arts Center and I went after them tooth and nail. That is what I don’t understand? If you are a politician and you think someone is spreading lies about you on the internet, why not use your First Amendment rights to defend yourself, instead of writing pitiful legislation that only helps lawyers make money. I’m not even going to go into detail about the author of this legislation, all I am going to say is that I am very disappointed in him, but not surprised. He has done silly stuff like this in the past. But what can I say, lawyers truly are ‘birds of a feather.’

I often wonder if Benjamin Franklin (my American hero) would have gotten discouraged or worried about slandering the King? Would the Revolution ever have happened? Challenging and dissenting government takes balls. It can also be messy and mean. I thank God everyday that I live in a country that put the most important amendment first – free speech. Now STFU SD Legislators and go work on something more important, LIKE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.

What good it the First Amendment if we can’t let non-people use it to?

While I am a registered Indy, I often lean to the left but have supported Republicans in the past, but I think what bugs me the most about Conservative Republicans is how they will bend over backwards to trample on the little guy so corporations can have their way, and this ruling proves it;

Some South Dakota political operatives are wary of a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down Thursday that nullifies a 100-year-old restriction and allows corporations and unions to spend more money to influence federal elections.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned rules that barred corporations and unions from using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.

This is disgusting on many levels, it would be one thing if the 5 justices that voted for this were just a bunch of regular Joes before they rolled into the SC, but not the case at all. Chief Justice John Roberts was a corporate tool before he got the job, and before that he worked for the second worst president we ever had, Ronald Reagan. He has an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with joe-six-pack.

Joel Rosenthal, former chairman of the state Republican Party, said the decision goes against what most people want.

“The public mood today is, ‘Let’s get this money out of politics,’ ” Rosenthal said. “This allows more money in.”

While I agree a 100% with Joel’s STATEMENT I find it ironic that he would say this, since he has assisted city candidates in the past that have taken plenty of money from BIG DEVELOPMENT company owners. But, hey, that’s okay because the companies themselves aren’t cutting the checks

Mark Anderson, president of the South Dakota Federation of Labor, said corporations aren’t people, and the First Amendment shouldn’t apply. Thursday’s decision “squeezes out the little guy.”

Well, Mark, not sure if you have not noticed, but the little guy has been squeezed out for a long, long, time.

Also, the court affirmed federal rules that require sponsors of political ads to disclose who paid for them.

In small 4 point type, of course.

Most experts have predicted the decision will send millions of extra dollars flooding into this fall’s elections. And they predict Republicans will be the main beneficiaries.

Get outta here! Makes you wonder why people even bother to vote anymore?

The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a dissent written by 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens. Speaking from the bench, he called Thursday’s decision “a radical change in the law … that dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions – and the narrow interests they represent – in determining who will hold public office.”

In other words, Bend over America!

I hope judge Caldwell and Roger Hunt take a good hard look at this survey;

By a 3-to-1 ratio, South Dakotans say campaign finance disclosure laws, such as the one state Rep. Roger Hunt skirted in 2006, provide valuable information for voters. The minority say those laws violate a donor’s right to free speech.

The problem I have with the Hunt case is that it wasn’t about ‘free speech’. What I do on this blog is considered ‘free speech’ what Hunt did is considered ‘money laundering’. I still think he got away with a crime. If you feel passionately enough about an issue to give $750,000 to it, the voters have the right to know who gave that money. That is what I consider ‘free speech’.

In one question, 75.4 percent agreed or strongly agreed that disclosure laws provide valuable information for voters, while 20.2 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In another, participants were asked which view was closer to their own position on the effect of disclosure laws: that they provide valuable information or they violate free speech. Valuable information won 72.4 percent to 22.8 percent.

I think this was worded incorrectly. Like I said above, I don’t think providing your name when you donate to a political cause is violating your free speech rights. You have a choice, you can remain anon and not give the money, no one is forcing you to give up your name, unless you donate the money. Voters have a right to know, in all fairness, who is donating to these causes. I always find it ironic that neo-cons never mention free speech rights when they are being publicly protested, only when it is helping their cause.

I have no words. Just watch and throw up a little.

As I suspected, your constitutional rights CAN be suspended when you are convicted of a felony. Judge Delaney explains his sentence and first amendment rights in the Newland case;

The advocacy ban was an infringement on Newland’s First Amendment rights. Delaney doesn’t deny that. But neither does he consider it more onerous or any less appropriate than many other infringements imposed as part of felony sentences.

The random searches Newland faces in the next year would be violations of his constitutional rights, but for the felony plea. Felons can face otherwise unconstitutional firearms restrictions and the right to associate with certain people or go to certain establishments, Delaney said.

“We restrict speech as well in a lot of protection orders, or in divorces, where in some cases the parties’ freedom to speak to one another may be limited,” he said

I don’t agree with limiting someone’s free speech, BUT, the judge makes a good point, felons often have many rights limited when they are on probation. It would be much worse for Bob if he was sitting in jail.

What do those 3 things have in common?