1st Amendment

Some of our jackass state legislators FAIL again

Who cares about Ben Franklin, he was a nobody

Good news from Pierre, again. I’m starting to like the 2o10 legislative session more and more everyday.

Maybe they shouldn’t have asked a lawyer that has had trouble in the past interpreting the 1st Amendment to write legislation for them . . . I’m just saying.

A House committee killed a bill that would have required those who operate Internet sites to keep records so they could identify people who anonymously contribute defamatory comments.

One of our greatest founding fathers, Franklin, often railed against England in anonymous letters to newspapers. Just imagine if Franklin feared anon dissent and did nothing? Where would our country be today. Do modern day lawmakers have any clue about history? Apparently not.

This isn’t the first time Todd Epp has taken a swipe at the First Amendment

Back in 2001 Todd was willing to defend the Brookings Arts Council as a board member of the SD Arts Council. Joy Crane ultimately got Todd to resign on the board because of the extreme conflict of interest that would have existed defending the BAC against someone he is supposed to be representing, a member of the Arts Council, Crane herself. That, and his blatant disregard for the First Amendment. Joy won her battle, I guess the BAC got a little nervous when they started getting letters from anti-censorship lawyers in New York and the ACLU.

As we insisted in our letter to Ms. Knutzen (jointly signed by NCAC, David Green of the First Amendment Project and Jennifer Ring of the ACLU of the Dakotas), randomly applying the vague and subjective standard of appropriateness to work that clearly constitutes protected speech raises serious constitutional concerns. The viewpoint expressed in “Chastity Belt” might well be unpopular and potentially controversial for Brookings, SD. But it is precisely to protect speech that is controversial or even offensive that the First Amendment exists. And, as the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed: “If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 1989)

Interesting discussion about the SD Legislature’s proposed defamation laws

Read the comments, they are great. I agree with Cory, if I am not making one single penny from anonymous people trying to defame politicians on my website, how does that make me responsible, and what is my personal gain? I have deleted comments in the past that are either slanderous or just really, really bad, but like Cory says, why should I be the speech cops for Pierre? This is just an attack on the blogs and they have suckered a former(?) blogger into writing the legislation to make the rest of us feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

Last I checked, politicians have the same 1st Amendment rights as I do

Image; Pat Powers, Dakota War College

I have stayed pretty quiet on this issue over the last couple of days (because the legislation would be impossible to enforce and quite frankly, it is unconstitutional), but I think it’s time I said something. I have often told politicians that I use sarcasm on my blog to ‘make observations’ in an attempt that someone can produce the facts, hopefully the party I am skewering. I will give any politician an opportunity to set the record straight, libel and slander isn’t a good thing, and if I wronged you, prove it. But that defense usually never happens. Why? Maybe because it is true? Maybe because they think they are above me? Maybe they don’t know how to work their email? Who knows, who cares. When someone tries to slander me, I defend myself. What I can’t understand is why politicians don’t do the same? The Gargoyle Leader tried to paint me as the ‘anti-pavilion’ a few years back because I opposed some policies of the Arts Center and I went after them tooth and nail. That is what I don’t understand? If you are a politician and you think someone is spreading lies about you on the internet, why not use your First Amendment rights to defend yourself, instead of writing pitiful legislation that only helps lawyers make money. I’m not even going to go into detail about the author of this legislation, all I am going to say is that I am very disappointed in him, but not surprised. He has done silly stuff like this in the past. But what can I say, lawyers truly are ‘birds of a feather.’

I often wonder if Benjamin Franklin (my American hero) would have gotten discouraged or worried about slandering the King? Would the Revolution ever have happened? Challenging and dissenting government takes balls. It can also be messy and mean. I thank God everyday that I live in a country that put the most important amendment first – free speech. Now STFU SD Legislators and go work on something more important, LIKE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.