“When God shuts a door, he opens a window.”
The Democrats must think they’re God. Why? Because though they recently shut the door of political free speech, they managed to crack the window of “filing a false police report” wide enough for the criminals to crawl through.
Doors and Windows? Allow me to bring this metaphor to life:
Democrats overwhelmingly voted to prevent the protection of political speech on the internet. The act in question was the “Online Freedom of Speech Act” and it aimed to make the words of individuals exempt from campaign finance laws.
The act would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act to guarantee that restrictions on political endorsements in the media would not apply to private individuals expressing political opinions or preferences on the web. In other words, it guaranteed freedom of speech to bloggers who might have it taken away by partisan bureaucrats during an election using the campaign finance reform rules.
Basically, the law was aimed at preventing a blogger’s endorsement of a political candidate from counting as a campaign donation. It was to protect individual internet writers from the standards applied to the large corporations that run radio stations, newspapers and cable networks. In other words, being that posting on the internet is no different than passing a note to a friend, web communication ought to be exempt from political restrictions.
As BlogCritic Dave Nalle stated, it goes down like this:
Pretty simple and straightforward. If you voted for it, you want bloggers to have free speech. If you voted against it you want to muzzle free exchange of ideas on the web. Nothing ambiguous or open to interpretation in the one-sentence bill.
Lest you’re one of those who continues to labor under the impression that the Democratic Party is the party which supports freedom and civil rights, the bill was defeated on overwhelming opposition by Democrat representatives and was strongly supported by Republicans. 179 Republicans voted ‘yea’ and only 38 voted ‘nay’. 143 Democrats voted ‘nay’ and only 38 voted ‘yea’. The numbers don’t lie. There was clearly an organized effort by Democrats to kill this bill. If even half of the Democrats had voted in favor of free speech on the internet the bill would have passed.
Wait wait wait. I thought the Democrats were the champions of civil liberties, and the last line of defense against the tyrannical Republican fascist state? I thought George Bush was slowly chipping away at our rights in a diabolical plan to rule the world?
What I didn’t think though, was that Democrats would allow Big Brother to sit at a tollbooth on the Information Super-Highway. The internet literally made Howard Dean. Literally. Without the work of bloggers, webmasters and visitors, he wouldn’t have nearly won the United States Presidency. But a year later, his own party is shutting it all down? This is more than just a violation of our rights, its political suicide.
I’d ask where the ACLU is one this one, but that leads me to the window…
Queue the worst court in the United States of America.
A federal appeals court nullified a California criminal law adopted after the Rodney King beating that made it unlawful for citizens to knowingly lodge false accusations against police officers.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday the law was an unconstitutional infringement of speech because false statements in support of officers were not criminalized. The decision, hailed by civil liberties groups and opposed by the California District Attorneys Association and law enforcement groups, overturns the California Supreme Court, which in 2002 ruled that free speech concerns took a back seat when it came to speech targeting police officers.
IS THIS COUNTRY INSANE???????
We just ruled that internet writers aren’t free to express their political viewpoints unfettered and without restriction but I can file a false police report without fear of punishment? I can’t endorse a candidate I feel will make a difference, but I sure as hell can lie to cops?
Let’s for a second, analyze the potential harm in this ruling.
Anyone with an agenda against an officer of the law (see: ALL CRIMINALS) can now file reports of abuse or wrong-doing THAT ARE COMPLETELY BASELESS and are be protected by the court.
Translation: Legally, I can accuse a hard working cop of rape or racism and then not be held accountable.
What’s the harm in that right? If its untrue, eventually it will be sorted out right? WRONG. If you’ve lived with our sensational mass media for more than 8 seconds, you’d realize that they eat these stories up. I’m fairly certain Bill O’Reilly sets aside an obligatory 10 minutes a night for stories on police brutality. If the 24 Hour Cable Networks were a stock, now would be a good time to buy. If it bleeds it leads, and nothing gets more play than a prisoner claiming to have been hurt by someone in a position of authority. The more severe the better, especially if the victim claims race is a factor.
Of course though, we never follow these stories from beginning to end. We like to rubberneck just long enough to permanently tarnish the officer’s reputation, and then cut out before it gets to trial. Accusations are exciting, but “not guilty” verdicts on the other hand, are just plain boring. THEY MIGHT NEVER RECOVER, but that’s fine, at least according to our Judical system, who just legalized a heinous form of slander.
The people that protect us–the nameless heroes that risk their lives every single day–have just been sold down the river. Apparently physical danger isn’t enough of a responsibility, because the 9th Circuit just put our police officers in financial danger as well. Their jobs are now, on a daily basis, open to the vendetta of criminals, anarchists and morons. (sorry for the redundancy)
Not only that, but we’ve decided they shouldn’t be held accountable once the allegations are proven false.
This is ridiculous. It is absolutely, and unequivocally unacceptable. I firmly believe that the 1st Amendment is our most sacred freedom, but nothing justifies this. Nothing set forth by our Founding Fathers was intended to put at risk our first line of defense against lawlessness and evil.
How can these two vastly different attitudes possibly come from the same government? How can political speech be so strictly regulated while lying to the police is a protected institution? Why does it even matter who Bush nominates to the bench, when the court regularly humiliates itself? Martha Stewart can’t lie about a stock trade, but a petty thief can lie about his arresting officer? How dare our Representatives even worry about Campaign Finance while the 9th Circuit is hollowing the greatest of Amendments by using it to justify this monstronsity.Powered by Sidelines