Freedom of Speech
It’s been a banner week for freedom of speech issues. On here, with SCOTUS, with the BOE. Speech, particularly political speech, is a fundamental right of every citizen. It’s embodied in the first amendment of our constitution, and I’ll post it here, to refresh our collective memories about what it says before lunching into what it means.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The freedoms granted in this amendment articulate the rights of we the people to not be subjected to laws that restrict our ability to speak about any issue we want. When it comes to political speech, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), has been tinkering with what that means with the landmark ruling in striking down the financial restrictions on corporations and organizations on buying political advertisements, technically using general funds for “electioneering” purposes.
Fundamentally, I don’t think corporations should have the same fundamental rights of an individual. The case law that has made corporations treated like individuals under the law goes back many years, and thus binding precedent would be somewhat hard to unravel. I’m disappointed that SCOTUS, didn’t address this at all, and stuck to a rather strict but expansive rendering on first amendment speech.
Regardless of what you think of the ruling, the important thing to realize is that in a country such as ours, where the rule of law governs, the only possible interpretation that SCOTUS could have found was that Congress could not make a law that would prohibit political speech. The question that they skipped right past in their decision, does money equal free speech? Oh there was plenty of precedent out there on campaign finance laws being a-okay, but the fundamental question about why we should accept that the ability to spend money is a speech issue wasn’t touched.
Money in politics is obviously an issue that has touched on the nerve of the public in a big way. Just look at the whole health care reform issue. The Senate version of the bill, is rife with corporate lobbyists riddled passages designed to protect corporate interests. Is anyone really fundamentally opposed to a law that would require insurance companies to eliminate the standard pre-existing conditions denials? Is anyone fundamentally opposed to allowing people over the age of 50 to buy government sponsored insurance when the private market sets rates that exceed most peoples mortgages in that age range?
The details of how to make that work, and how much it would cost would require some honest discussions. Not about how well the Insurance companies could turn a profit if those two laws become a reality. They would figure out a way themselves, maybe by cutting back on the administrative costs that exist mostly to figure out ways to deny coverage. And if they can’t deny coverage, maybe they would pay the doctors a little faster. And if doctors knew that they would get paid a little faster then maybe they wouldn’t have backoffices filled with people trying to get the bills paid. And if all the system suddenly had to be more efficient if they still want to pay executives millions, then maybe they’d figure out how to come up with simpler claim forms and work with the medical community to reduce paperwork. In short, maybe the answer to how to fix our health care system should come from the field and not Washington.
That’s where the whole idea of freedom of speech comes together. The health care bills out of the Senate and House and the Senate Finance Committee, let’s not forget that there are three different bills out there, were all put together behind closed doors by the powerbrokers in Washington, who’ve been heavily lobbied by corporations and organizations. And everyone who wants to have a say in the process has been able to. Whether it’s the 9/12 groups, the tea partiers, the health care unions, the pharmaceutical companies, the aarp, and on and on. There’s not a constiuency group left unspoken, and while it’s messy and vociferous it is exactly what should happen in a Democracy.
Which brings me back to Democracy and the Norwalk BOE. At the end of the January 19th meeting, there was some rather odd discussion that no one on the BOE can speak in public about BOE issues. Policy by-laws were read into the record. This issue, that is, the communication by the BOE to the public was the biggest issue driving people to the polls this past election. The lack of communication from the BOE on the important issues facing the Norwalk Public Schools was precisely why voters overwhelmingly put new members on the BOE. It is a freedom of speech issue. When important policy items are being discussed it is important for the public to know where each BOE member stands. It is important to hear the different perspectives on an issue. The diversity of opinion and perspective is precisely the objectives of having a group of people represent the public rather than a single individual. Any by-law that restricts speech by a BOE member is unconstitutional.
Lastly, there’s been a few comments here regarding censorship of comments. There have been very few comments that have been removed. By very fews I can, in three plus years count less than 44. I can also tell you why they were removed. 12 were removed because they made allegations about family members of people in public office. 13 were removed because they attacked personally other commenter who posted here. 9 were removed by requests of legal counsel representing issues of libel and or slander. 10 were removed because they were falsifying support for a statement made by the same person and pretending to be different people. Attacking commenters personally through anonymous comments here is just against the rules established here. While there’s the occasional outcry against profanity, grammar, and accuracy of facts, I’ve always left it to the threads to sort themselves.
The ability of anonymous people to come here and criticize or whistle-blow or complain about the state of affairs of any organization and government has always been something I cherish deeply. But like any system, there are rules that are intended to create an even playing field for that to happen. There’s no reason to attack people just because you disagree with them when there is so much room to attack the positions and issues that are stated.
