Marching under the banner of “transparency,” there is a growing movement in the U.S. to limit truly free speech. The movement claims to be attacking “dark money,” but the reality is that its adherents want to shut up its ideological opponents. Independent expressions of support or opposition for candidates or political issues are marginalized by irrelevant questions about funding sources. Honest research and well-formulated arguments are denounced as “biased” or “untrustworthy” because of who the donors are rather than based on the merits of the arguments presented.
Tagged: free speech
If you don’t visit Somewhat Reasonable and the Heartlander digital magazine every day, you’re missing out on some of the best news and commentary on liberty and free markets you can find. But worry[…]
Just two weeks after reports surfaced that Pope Francis plans to put significant pressure on global leaders to fight what he believes to be manmade, imminent global warming, the leader of the world’s largest church is receiving strong and worthy criticism from conservatives again — this time for suggesting there is a “limit” to freedom of speech in wake of the Paris attacks on magazine Charlie Hebdo.
Each week I write an energy-themed commentary. The topic on which I write is generally something that my readers—even those in the energy industry—don’t know about. I frequently get grateful responses for the information, education, and deadlines addressed.
Reverence and veneration of our national flag has long been profound in the United States, far more so than in other countries. Veneration of the Stars and Stripes has evolved beyond mere respect for it as a symbol of national identity, but as an almost religious emblem of American values and the American way of life.
The net neutrality movement is positioning to influence the FCC, Congress, and candidates in the mid-term election cycle, to support their version of net neutrality — i.e. FCC reclassification of broadband Internet service as a telephone common carrier service.
In its recent ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down yet another provision of federal campaign finance law as a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
This time it was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s limitation on the aggregate amount of contributions — presently $123,200 — that a donor may contribute to all candidates or party committees in one election cycle.
Yesterday, a “Senior Organizer” for the “Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People Campaign” named Aquene Freechild commended the morally and fiscally bankrupt state of Illinois for becoming the 14th state[…]
The arguments made against Citizens United all boil down to a conviction that speech from some quarters is not worth hearing, and that the public cannot be trusted with the vote if they are influenced by certain disfavored speakers.
The firestorm around the White House is only going to grow with the knowledge that the administration targeted Fox News’ reporter James Rosen for doing nothing more than being a reporter.[…]
As George Will notes in The Washington Post, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s “Clean Elections Act,” cleaned up some wrong-headed notions about what the First Amendment means. Given[…]
The libertarian take on the Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday in the Westboro Baptist/military funerals case may be boiled down to the old nostrum that we may disagree with what the[…]