Malkin: The progressive "climate of hate:" An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Via Karl Denninger, comes this recap of the Left's history of violence-tinged rhetoric:

The Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.

They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.

Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.

And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.

They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it. ...

Read it all here. A good reminder as we hear the Left try to spin the Tucson mass shooting as the work of some "right-wing extremist".

Pittsburgh-area college abandons free speech restrictions

From FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:

After months of national media attention, a student threatened with punishment for attempting to form a gun-rights group at Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) is finally allowed to distribute pamphlets about the group on campus. The college has also rescinded its unconstitutional policy demanding "prior written approval" for "personal contact with individuals or groups related to non-sponsored college material or events." After Christine Brashier, who wanted to form a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), was told that her pamphlets were unacceptable "solicitation" and that any further efforts would be considered "academic misconduct," she turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

"We are pleased that CCAC has finally given its students the right to encourage one another to band together for causes they believe in," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "This is another example of how just one college student standing up for her rights can help bring liberty to her entire campus."

In April, Brashier created pamphlets to distribute to her classmates encouraging them to join her in forming a chapter of the SCCC national organization at CCAC. Her pamphlets stated that the group "supports the legalization of concealed carry by licensed individuals on college campuses." She personally distributed copies of the pamphlets, which identified her as a "Campus Leader" of the effort to start the chapter.

Brashier was quickly summoned to a meeting with administrators, who told her that passing out her non-commercial pamphlets was prohibited as "solicitation." Furthermore, they insisted that the college pre-approve any pamphlets, that pamphlets like hers would not be approved, and that Brashier destroy all copies of her pamphlet. At one point during the meeting, Dean Yvonne Burns reportedly said, "You may want to discuss this topic but the college does not, and you cannot make us." Brashier was warned that any further efforts would be considered "academic misconduct."

FIRE wrote CCAC President Alex Johnson on April 29 about these violations of Brashier's First Amendment speech and association rights, pointing out that her speech in no way constituted solicitation, that CCAC may not condition approval of literature on its viewpoint or content, and that if CCAC recognizes student organizations at all, it must recognize an organization that supports concealed carry on campus. ...

More details here. Our colleges and universities are bastions of leftist thought and political correctness, where open expression and debate are often institutionally suppressed. The community college in question only grudgingly backed down because it knew it would lose a lawsuit.

FTC to regulate blogging

From an AP story, via Fox News:

The Federal Trade Commission will try to regulate blogging for the first time, requiring writers on the Web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.

The FTC said Monday its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final Web guidelines, which had been expected. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.

The commission stopped short of specifying how bloggers must disclose conflicts of interest. Rich Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's advertising practices division, said the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous," no matter what form it will take.

Bloggers have long praised or panned products and services online. But what some consumers might not know is that many companies pay reviewers for their write-ups or give them free products such as toys or computers or trips to Disneyland. In contrast, at traditional journalism outlets, products borrowed for reviews generally have to be returned.

Before the FTC gave notice last November it was going to regulate such endorsements, blogs varied in the level of disclosures about these potential conflicts of interest. ...

Rest here.

McCain-Feingold and the book banners

From George Will, writing in the Washington Post:

Last March, during the Supreme Court argument concerning the Federal Election Commission's banning of a political movie, several justices were aghast. Suddenly and belatedly they saw the abyss that could swallow the First Amendment.

Justice Antonin Scalia was "a little disoriented" and Justice Samuel Alito said "that's pretty incredible." Chief Justice John Roberts said: "If we accept your constitutional argument, we're establishing a precedent that you yourself say would extend to banning the book" -- a hypothetical 500-page book containing one sentence that said "vote for" a particular candidate.

What shocked them, but should not have, were statements by a government lawyer who was only doing his professional duty with ruinous honesty -- ruinous to his cause. He was defending the mare's-nest of uncertainties that federal campaign finance law has made and the mess the court made in 2003 when, by affirming the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold's further speech restrictions, it allowed Congress to regulate speech by and about people running for Congress.

The government lawyer was trying to justify the FEC's 2008 decision that McCain-Feingold required banning "Hillary: The Movie" from video-on-demand distribution. The lawyer said, in effect:

Don't blame me. McCain-Feingold orders people to shut up when political speech matters most. It bans "electioneering communications" (communications "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate") paid for by corporations in the 30 days before primaries and 60 days before general elections. Corporations include not only, or primarily, the likes of GM and GE; corporations also include issue advocacy groups, from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club. So, yes, if a book published (as books are) by a corporation contains even a sentence of election-related advocacy, the book could -- must -- be banned by the federal government, and not just during the McCain-Feingold muzzle period.

Stunned, the court ordered that the case be reargued Sept. 9. On Aug. 30, a New York Times story included a delicious morsel about Fred Wertheimer, an indefatigable advocate of increased government control of the quantity, timing and content of campaign speech -- speech about the composition of the government:

"In an interview, Mr. Wertheimer seemed reluctant to answer questions about the government regulation of books. Pressed, Mr. Wertheimer finally said, 'A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned.' " ...

Read the rest here. McCain-Feingold (perhaps more accurately described as the Incumbent Protection Act) is an odious carbuncle on the flesh of the First Amendment that seeks to stifle political dissenting speech.

The high Court heard re-argument last Wednesday in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205). SCOTUSblog has coverage of the oral argument here, and SCOTUSwiki has the merit and amici briefs here for those interested. The NRA, which has long opposed McCain-Feingold, filed an amicus brief, available here.

Let's hope the Court excises the malignant tumor of McCain-Feingold from our beloved First Amendment.

The Freest State in the Nation

According to a February 2009 George Mason University study entitled Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom, the freest state in the union is New Hampshire, followed by Colorado, South Dakota, Idaho and Texas.

The least free states in the nation were New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland.

Here are the overall rankings (click to enlarge):

Read the report here. So how does your state stack up?

College: No-free-speech zone?

From the Miami Herald (a normally anti-gun rights publication):

... Their First Amendment rights, however, may be another matter. Those are taking a beating these days, right in the place that's supposed to be America's rowdiest free-speech zone: college campuses.

A student who speaks up about the right to own or carry a gun stands a good chance of getting suspended or even arrested:

• When a Central Connecticut State University senior fulfilled a communications-class assignment by giving a presentation on why students and professors should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, his professor reported him to the police, who called him in for questioning. Professor Paula Anderson, questioned by a reporter from the school paper, was unrepentant: The student was a ''perceived risk'' and she had a ``responsibility to protect the well-being of our students.''

• Like old Soviet commissars clapping dissidents into psychiatric hospitals, administrators at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., responded to a student's e-mail criticizing school policy on concealed weapons by suspending him and ordering him to undergo a ``mental health examination.''

• Trying to recruit new members, the Young Conservatives of Texas club at Lone Star College near Houston passed out fliers lampooning gun-safety manuals. (''No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey.'') Administrators confiscated the fliers, threatened to disband the club and -- when the worried students sought legal counsel -- wrote their lawyers that any ''mention of firearms'' amounted to ''interference with the operation of the school or the rights of others'' because it ''brings fear and concern to students, faculty and staff.'' Oddly, the administrators did not suspend themselves, even though their own e-mail included a ``mention of firearms.''

• Tarrant County College, near Fort Worth, took the no-mention policy a step further, banning a student from wearing an empty holster to protest the campus ban on concealed guns. ''We're protecting the learning environment,'' explained Juan Garcia, the school's vice president for student development and, clearly, a devoted scholar of academic doublespeak. ...

Read the whole thing here.

That's soooo gay

Commentary from the United Kingdom, on a proposed law to ban "anti-gay" speech:

... But because I live in that kind of country, I have to accept that many Catholics have equally strong and honestly held views about homosexuality – and the right to express them. As far as I'm concerned, the church is entitled to its hellfire and brimstone judgment, and to preach it to anyone who'll listen. What's sauce for the gay goose is sauce for the God-fearing gander.

This Government, though, seems determined to abolish freedom of speech. It has made it a criminal offence to incite religious or racial hatred and, as of last year, there is also an offence on the statute book (but not yet in force) of inciting hatred based on sexual orientation. If this legislative trend continues, telling someone you don't like their slacks could soon land you in the slammer.

Bucking this trend, the House of Lords inserted a "free speech" exception to the gay-hate offence, which protects people who discuss or criticise sexual conduct, or urge others to refrain from it. Now, though, the Ministry of Justice has added a clause to the current Coroners and Justice Bill which, if passed, will repeal that "free speech" exception. The justice secretary, Jack Straw, said that there were no circumstances in which the right to freedom of speech could justify homophobic behaviour. [emphasis added]

When seeking to outlaw homophobic acts, Mr Straw is thinking of extreme political groups and nasty rap lyrics. He probably doesn't have in mind the "only gay in the village" sketches from Little Britain. But his political opponents fear that that kind of comedy could fall foul of his new law. ...

Article here. Methinks the British government doesn't understand the concept of free speech. Popular, politically correct speech doesn't need protecting; unpopular, offensive, controversial speech does.

Google's gatekeepers

From the New York Times, on Google's process for censoring search results, particularly to comply with more restrictive speech laws in other countries:

‘If your whole game is to increase market share,’ says Lawrence Lessig, speaking of Google, ‘it’s hard to . . . gather data in ways that don’t raise privacy concerns or in ways that might help repressive governments to block controversial content.’
...
“Right now, we’re trusting Google because it’s good, but of course, we run the risk that the day will come when Google goes bad,” Wu told me. In his view, that day might come when Google allowed its automated Web crawlers, or search bots, to be used for law-enforcement and national-security purposes. “Under pressure to fight terrorism or to pacify repressive governments, Google could track everything we’ve searched for, everything we’re writing on gmail, everything we’re writing on Google docs, to figure out who we are and what we do,” he said. “It would make the Internet a much scarier place for free expression.” The question of free speech online isn’t just about what a company like Google lets us read or see; it’s also about what it does with what we write, search and view.

WU’S FEARS THAT violations of privacy could chill free speech are grounded in recent history: in China in 2004, Yahoo turned over to the Chinese government important account information connected to the e-mail address of Shi Tao, a Chinese dissident who was imprisoned as a result. Yahoo has since come to realize that the best way of resisting subpoenas from repressive governments is to ensure that private data can’t be turned over, even if a government demands it. In some countries, I was told by Michael Samway, who heads Yahoo’s human rights efforts, Yahoo is now able to store communications data and search queries offshore and limits access of local employees, so Yahoo can’t be forced to turn over this information even if it is ordered to do so.

Isolating, or better still, purging data is the best way of protecting privacy and free expression in the Internet age: it’s the only way of guaranteeing that government officials can’t force companies like Google and Yahoo to turn over information that allows individuals to be identified. Google, which refused to discuss its data-purging policies on the record, has raised the suspicion of advocacy groups like Privacy International. Google announced in September that it would anonymize all the I.P. addresses on its server logs after nine months. Until that time, however, it will continue to store a wealth of personal information about our search results and viewing habits — in part to improve its targeted advertising and therefore its profits. As Wu suggests, it would be a catastrophe for privacy and free speech if this information fell into the wrong hands.

Article here. As Google's search data primacy grows, privacy concerns will only increase. Google's plan to anonymize its server log data after nine months is a positive step for user privacy, although its massive online store of, e.g., email data and private user-created documents increases the risk of hackers (including those employed by governments) or Google itself accessing such information for nefarious purposes.