From the Right: Supreme Court Ruling - Upholds Free Speech

By Frank R. D'Onofrio

This week’s ruling by the US Supreme Court upholding political speech was widely derided by the Left (Progressives) and applauded by the Right (Conservatives).

To quote popular vernacular: What is up with that?

I thought in this country we are free to speak. So in ways that mirror political thought, as a conservative, I tend to agree with the conservative justices of the Supreme Court

This from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal 01/23/2010:

“Hopefully, this ruling marks an end to 20 years of jurisprudence in which the Court has provided less protection to core political speech than it has to Internet pornography, the transmission of stolen information, flag burning, commercial advertising, topless dancing, and burning a cross outside an African-American church.”

Say what you think about the ruling let me tell you what I feel about it. When you limit the first amendment right of free speech in any matter or form political, or whatever. It gives rise to abuse. There are ways for ordinary people to express their views and to be heard. The internet has done a good job of that. You and I disagree, but my point is that our society has gone way too far to “limit” what can or cannot be said. Oliver Wendell Holmes’ in hs famous remarks about "shouting fiore in a crowded theater" was right to say that:

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent.” Schenck v. United States in 1919.

However, what is transpiring is a new form of political speech that of shutting up the opposition that you do not agree with. I very much disagree with the talk that people spew out every day… However to quote Voltaire ( who actually did not say it, but is attributed as saying it).

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

We live in a society that you cannot say things in the event of "offending people". We cannot have Christmas displays because it offends non believers. We cannot have the 10 Commandments displayed because it offends people due to its religious affiliation. However, we can have things said that are considered offensive such as pornographic material, or perform acts such as burning a cross outside burning a cross outside a black church, or burning the symbol of our country the American flag, because they are “protected acts of free speech”. I don’t get it, and I never will.

The American people thought they had heard the truth when Barak Obama ran for President. They only heard some of the conversations. The Liberal left was so caught up with their ideological hero that they needed to elect him president (Chris Matthews – I feel a thrill running up my leg). He was not vetted, some of his views can be considered to the far left of center. He campaigned to the right of that. When he was elected his first year was governed to a left that a majority of Americans were unaccustomed to and against. When given the chance to vote - the most Progressive liberal state in the Union Massachusetts - voted for a conservative. A repudiation of the policies of the first year President.

We have liberal leaders such as Dennis Kucinich who because they disagree with the political speech on Talk Radio (Conservative Speech) stating on January 22nd on the Bill O’Reiley show The O’Reiley Factor, that because there is not a diversity of content on the radio, that we should re-institute the “Fairness Doctrine”. What he is saying is that because of the success of Conservative Talk Radio, we should limit people’s access to it. The non-success of Liberal or Progressive Air America, is giving rise to a new kind of speech: That of if we don’t agree with you – we shut you up…. For Good.

In February of 2005 the House of representatives voted to limit the free speech on the internet. This is the passage of the bill that COULD NOT PASS in Congress….

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence:

"Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

Can you believe a bill which actually defines free speech over the internet (This Blog for example), could not pass a House representatives vote.

The media is deeply liberal. That is a fact. Turn to any Television station and read most Newspapers, and what you get is a liberal slant on the news. We get a news which denigrates the Conservative right and lifts the Liberal Left. Let’s speak a moment about that.

To the Liberal Media the following presidents in my political lifetime are considered “Brilliant”.

Barak Obama – He is just Brilliant – a Harvard Graduate
Bill Clinton – A Rhodes Scholar
Jimmy Carter – A physicist

The following Presidents were considered by the media about a quarter short of a dollar – meaning not too bright…

George W. Bush – Supreme Commander of the less brilliant, (because he could not say the word Nuclear, and created words such as “Misunderestimated”)
George H.W. Bush (and who could not forget his Vice President Dan Quayle – who could not spell the word potato on the David Letterman Show)
Ronald Reagan – who slept his way through his presidency ( The press ridiculed his defense initiative and nicknamed it “Star Wars” – Now it does work)
Gerald Ford – Who tripped his way through his presidency.

Now – find me a Progressive on this list that is considered by the media as – “Not too Bright”….
– OR –
This one is harder – Find me a Conservative on this list who is considered by the media as “Intelligent”…

Are you getting the point?
(Thank you Glenn Beck (January 21st Show on Fox News)

Regardless of the intelligence of these presidents… we have a press and media that is comprised of people who have a large impression of book smarts, and no impression of people who actually get the job done. I have personally worked for some brilliant idiots in my life (People who were considered brilliant, but could not navigate out of a paper bag) and have also worked for people who were not as smart intellectually, but they knew how to get a job done right. However, the Progressive Liberal movement SO believes that they are correct they will limit your access to information to prove themselves correct.

The Liberal Progressive Movement owns the following outlets
– The Newspapers of Most major cities (except maybe the Wall Street
Journal) The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times,
The Baltimore Sun. There are more
– The Major Network TV outlets (Except Fox News- which according to the
Obama Administration isn’t a “real” News outlet)
– Academia – Most College Professors consider themselves Liberal Progressive.

The Conservative Movement owns the following outlets
– Talk Radio
– The Internet

So do we actually NEED diversity... For Liberal Outlets to compete???
(a Rhetorical Question )

The People However are speaking:

The only point I need to make here is that people are speaking with their pocketbooks. The readership at the once powerful New York Times is down so much that they need to mortgage their building to stay in business… The Baltimore Sun is so close to going out of business.... readership is so low that the paper on a daily basis is so tiny.. The ads are disappearing. The Progressive Liberal News Outlets CNN, and MSNBC are getting trounced by a balanced Fox News by a 7 to 1 Margin in viewership.

The Progressive Liberal Media which owned the News outlets for most of my adult life are outraged. Their Progressive message is not resonating with “the people” they represent. So majority of people are not buying their newspapers, they are not turning in to their pundits, and they are refusing to accept the message that Progressivism works… This is a center right country, and the progressive liberals have been working hard to skew this country to the left and are not succeeding. They are succeeding in academia however, since the balance of academia is so far liberal it is upsetting ( a conversation for another post). The only way to resolve this issue TODAY, is to limit the message, and where is the focus of the limitation gravitating to? The Internet and Talk Radio…. The Progressive left must limit their speech.

This brings me full circle to the events of this week.

Representative Chris Van Holland (democrat - Maryland) is attacking the Supreme Court decision: "I think it's an un-American decision.”

Do we really want to go down this slippery slope.

I am afraid that the country I grew up in, the country that when as a child when others told me not say something ... I would rebuke “It’s a Free Country”. Will no longer be free. The fact that we limit free speech in any place in the United States of America is as Un-American as anything you could imagine. The First Amendment to the Constitution is an Unalienable right! And according to the founding fathers a RIGHT attributed to us by the Almighty…..By GOD. It is a right that is unassailable.

Limiting the right to expression by anyone, or any group, is to deny a right that we hold to be sacred. Probably THE MOST SACRED RIGHT we have. Can there be abuses.. yes… there can be abuses. However, I believe that WE THE PEOPLE, can determine for ourselves what is true or not true, what we want and do not want to hear. The people are saying it now at the ballot boxes of America.. they are turning away the Progressive Left Media because they are WRONG. They are not drowning out their speech. They are refusing to listen to the radio programs when they don’t agree… Refusing to buy the newspapers of those who disagree… refusing to watch the news of those people who do not agree.

This summer, when the people chose to tell their congressional representatives, that they were not happy with their votes on many issues facing them… the liberal media discounted them… they made fun of them… they told them in print and on the airwaves that they were non consequential. That they were WRONG.

The Progressive media refused to acknowledge their upset. WHY? Because it did not sit with their agenda. However, the people found solace in the places that would listen to them – Talk Radio and the Internet. Our congressional leaders – those who were elected to represent the people – denounced them as EXTREMISTS AND TERRORISTS. Even though these demonstrations were peaceful. Could you Believe THAT!

When their congressional representatives refused to confront the anger of their constituencies, they literally told their constituents to shut up. The Progressive Congressmen did not want to hear their constituents who waited for hours to be heard. Ultimately, they had "Telephone Town Meetings", so they could control the message. The Progressive Liberal left sent goons to shout down the voices of the right.They were sent in some cases to "beat up" people fromt he right who disagree. Even though the people who disagreed were polite, but firm. The conservatives were were told figuratively “to sit down and shut up”. I NEVER have seent his in the United States of America...

When a dictator (such as Iranian President Ahmadenijad, or Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez) comes to Columbia University, or the United Nations to speak, he is welcomed by academia, and by the political world – regardless of the hatred he espouses. However, when a conservative candidate, or a conservative speaker comes to Columbia to speak, there are demonstrations to PREVENT THEIR SPEECH FROM BEING HEARD.

WHY?

Why is free speech no longer free. Is Speech only free if I agree. This is wrong, and cannot be tolerated by the people of the United States of America. To the progressive left, my interpretation of their motives is Free Speech is allowed ONLY if the intellectuals or those in power agree it is correct or true. Other than that it cannot be considered true speech- That is why talk Radio is so despised, and why talk radio pundits on the right are so hated… In London the roots of Free speech can be found in Speakers Corner in Hyde Park. Today we can say the roots of free speech can be the Internet… It may also be talk radio.

People will listen to the truth and they should be allowed to make up their own minds, as to what is truth, and what is not. THAT IS FREEDOM. THAT IS THE UNALIENABLE RIGHT ESPOUSED BY THE CONSTITUTION. What would have happened if 400 years ago, people in Hyde Park London were told that the only speech allowed was that to which people agreed with? The limitation of Free speech is the first right to be taken away in a dictatorship, and in Communism. It is a right not allowed in countries such as Iran, Venezuela, and China.

Free Speech is the reason the American experiment worked. It is why I agree with the Supreme Court decision this week.