Rand knows I love my Kazaa, but there brews a Supreme Court case on free speech considerably more important than P2P. In the case of Nike v. Kasky, No. 02-575, the Supreme Court could strike a big blow for free speech. Nike has been screwed with for five years under unconstitutional laws regarding "commercial speech" simply for making statements and taking out ads to defend themselves against charges of bad labor practices.
Solicitor General Ted Olson, representing the Bush administration, has suggested sidestepping the basic underlying issue of whether Nike was engaging in First Amendment free speech, but give Nike the ruling on other legal grounds. Boo, hiss. Chickenshit.
The court could decide the case on perhaps several different types of grounds, but the most basic one calling out to them is the artificial legal distinction between protected free speech versus somehow less protected commercial speech. Since the 1942 Valentine v. Chrestensen decision, the court has sort of halfway drifted toward accepting the commified idea that free speech protections do not apply to any person or group who might conceivably in any way make a buck from what they are saying. The constitution details no such distinction. To put it differently, commie-types just made it up out of the air. Deroy Murdock has more HERE.
The most obviously egregious example of how this false distinction harms the public comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Drug manufacturers are prohibited from advertising the results of studies from themselves or other independent groups of benefits that can be derived from using their drugs other than ones formally recognized by the FDA. Doctors and patients get deprived of true and highly useful information. The legal excuse justifying the government's right to censor them is simply that the drug companies might profit from spreading this (true and accurate) information. This is a more egregious violation of civil liberties, one with worse impact on the public, than about anything involved in the dreaded Patriot Act.
Commie left wingers who don't like granting Nike free speech parity might take into consideration what kind of stick this arbitrary distinction represents, and how it can come back to bite you in the ass. Compared to the indirect commercial interest of the specific facts of the Nike case, Eminem records are obviously HIGHLY commercial speech. He's just saying that stuff to make money, so why shouldn't he be subject to reasonable commercial restrictions as to what he can say just like for Nike or drug manufacturers?
In this Nike case, the court could just take a big broom and make a clean sweep. Just say the obvious and true thing that speech is speech, a press is a press. It would clarify and simplify a great many matters, and we would have more freedom.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
I didn't know a damn thing about this - very important Al, thanks.
2 - Michael Croft
Very interesting. I like this quote from the AJC fascinating. Ted Olsen, our only Solicitor General, said:
Verizon/RIAA, anyone?3 - Chad Orzel
I have no particular comment about the actual case, I'd just like to know why this is under "books" in the categorization, when it doesn't actually have anything to do with books (other than tacking a few Amazon links at the end, but by that logic, anything that gets posted could be about books).
I've never been wild about the addition of a category for miscellaneous political rantings, but since we've got an "Etc." category, please use it. Having to sort through a bunch of jabbering about the manifest evil of liberals in order to find actual book and record reviews cuts down on the appeal of this site.
IMAO, YMMV, and all that.
4 - Michael Croft
Chad, this was in Etc. when I made my comment.
I certainly hope that no one here would change their posts' categories or timestamps to cause them to show up on the front page.
5 - Eric Olsen
I see no need to cast suspicions, but this is clearly an Et Cetera.
Perhaps I should make a statement on this: I try to categorize based upon the "main" subject matter. As Chad mentioned, you can tack a book or whatever on to anything. Clearly the subject here is broadly political, hence Et Cetera. I disagree that Et Cetera is just a dumping ground for random political raving, though, it has been a very important and lively forum where some ofour finest thinking has been exposed.
But I have also found that the poitical writing seems to work best here when tied to something that is actually happening in the world, best of all with some kind of cultural or popular cultural connection.
And Chad, surely you aren't telling me that "jabbering about manifest evils" is confined to conservatives. I'd say it's pretty damned equal.
6 - Chad Orzel
I wouldn't be fool enough to claim that there isn't equal-opportunity political ranting here-- the top "Etc." post at the moment is an anti-Bush one. But Al Barger pretty much confines his jabbering to the subject of liberal perfidy, and he's one of the worst about sticking political screeds into the review categories.
7 - Eric Olsen
We will try to rectify the latter. Remember though it is perfectly legit to rant politically in a review or even "news" about a book, CD, film, etc.
On a sidelight I think Al and Brian perfectly cancel each other out, like in particle physics, and if they ever meet a black hole may be created.
8 - Al Barger
Brian and I do NOT cancel each other out. Two reasons. 1)We are not entirely polar opposites. We actually agree from time to time. 2)When we are opposed, I win. My superior logic crushes all competition, for I am He-Man, Master of the Universe.
Also, I can't believe that we've got little boys whining about my choice of categories for a post. Sounds like communism to me. Jebus, guys, why don't you spend that energy creating some new posts?