Freedom of Speech

The 1st amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech is a pretty simple affair to anyone who has not thought about it too deeply.  “I can say what I want to and too bad if you don’t like it; you can’t stop me, ‘cause it’s a free country.” That pretty much sums it up.  To a 1st amendment scholar or to any lawyer or to a legal mind, it is not quite that simple.  “I can say anything I want to except for the following: 1) I can’t slander or libel anyone and get away with it (both of these require the statement of an untruth, malice, and damage to a person or his reputation or his financial security).  2) I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, thereby provoking an unnecessary panic with possible consequent damage to persons or property.  And 3) I can’t be obscene, whatever that means ('but I know it when I see it').”  That’s what freedom of speech means to a person familiar with how the law works.

But things have gotten interesting lately.  The already infamous Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has introduced another wrinkle in the fabric of just exactly what speech is protected by the Constitution.  Now corporations are persons whose free speech rights are protected by the Constitution and, as it may cost money to place a political ad on a network TV station, now money is protected as speech without limit too.  And a lot of people are upset with this decision, without knowing really how to get around the issues of just exactly what speech is really FREE and protected.

So, this essay is my 2c worth.

Texas After Roe v. Wade

Let’s indulge a thought experiment.  Let’s imagine the repeal of Roe v. Wade, effectively returning to each state complete sovereignty over the abortion issue.  Let’s further suppose that Texas, not wishing to be outdone, legislates abortion to be the same as first degree murder (far from impossible – if abortion is murder – and no abortion is ever not pre-meditated – then abortion is pre-meditated murder, 1st degree murder), punishable by death or life in prison without hope of parole.  Let’s further suppose a Texan Jane Roe who just found out that she is pregnant and for whatever reason does not want to have a baby, Texas law notwithstanding.

The BIG Question

The Big Question for the 21st Century is whether a critical mass of humanity will realize by the start of the 22nd Century that it has been on a path of self-annihilation for a long time and that it may be too late to save itself by changing course; so why bother?

Open Carry Gun Rights

Apparently it is Constitutional to openly carry firearms.  So here is my question: May a business prohibit you from openly carrying your firearm into their place of business?  May a business prohibit you from carrying a firearm into their place of business at all?  Prohibit you LEGALLY?  The answer is remarkably simple: yes and yes.

The 2nd Amendment prevents Congress – and the federal government and state and local governments – from infringing your right to keep and bear firearms.  It does nothing to prevent a private entity from prohibiting you from entering its privately owned space.  The private entity makes up its own rules as to who may enter and who may not and – except rarely (as in cases of discrimination) – may enforce those prohibitions.

Here’s the rub though.  By the above, it would seem that your right to bear should allow you to bear arms into government buildings, right?   Hmmm.  Not so quick, Charlie!  Logic may be on your side, but you will have to sue.  And don’t bet that logic and rights will help you to win your case.

Every now and again, common sense needs to trump what someone thinks is Constitutional.  Not often enough if you ask me.

If someone can find an official and somewhat comprehensive list of companies on one side of this “issue” or another, please let me know.  I will publish a link to it, to the delight of all those on either side of this issue.

Hobby Lobby

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case is yet one more case that the Supreme Court has decided that remains controversial.  Whose rights are we to protect anyhow?  Are we going to protect the "religious rights" of owners of a corporation, their rights to refuse to allow some health-care coverage to their own employees, even if they do not have to pay for it?  Or ought we to fight for the protection of the rights of the many more American citizens who work for them, who do not share the religious biases of their employers?  Whose freedom is it anyway?  The Roberts court affirms that the freedom they will protect is the freedom of the employers.  The Roberts Court has a long and consistent history of imagining that corporations have Constitutional Rights.  <Sigh>