HB320 Followup - Relative to the Removal of Certain Campaign Materials From Polling Places - Granite Grok

HB320 Followup – Relative to the Removal of Certain Campaign Materials From Polling Places

On January 22, I reported on House Bill 320, an “Act Relative to the Removal of Certain Campaign Materials at the polling place.”   I’m happy to report that two of the Bills co-sponsors responded to my email.

The motivation for the legislation was, as many speculated to me after the original report, the result of a graphic poster-sized image of an aborted fetus at a polling place in Manchester.  A parent had a young child in tow, and the mother expressed concern.

I am pro-life but admit that I have long struggled with these displays for the very reason that motivated the resident to request this legislation.   They are graphic and disturbing, but abortion should be disturbing.  And as I noted in my remarks to both of the Reps who responded, I have a much greater concern.

We must not give moderators a new arbitrary power to limit political speech or leave them any shadows or penumbras in which to hide arbitrary acts (intentional or not) of tyranny.

I would like to thank Joe Lachance and Will Infantine for responding and agreeing that the original language leaves too much room for interpretation and that there is still work to be done to protect political speech.   Here are my remarks in return.

Thanks for the response.  I suspected that this was the case (with the aborted baby pictures).  I confess to having to wrestle with this problem myself mentally, at least.

I can see the desire to manage that, but I am forever cautioned by unintended consequences.  The language would need to be much more specific in my mind to avoid giving moderators too much latitude, and if that were not possible, I’d be inclined to oppose such a statute.

And additionally…

My biggest concern is that there is always a tendency toward abuse, and legitimate speech could be affected.  Any ‘solution’ must ensure this does not happen.   We also must measure any action (by the legislature) against its suitability if applied in any other public space where children could be present.

Conservatives and freedom and liberty folk support stay-at-home parenting and homeschooling, so we know that when that adult goes to vote, children may be in tow, at least through their more tender years.  Such graphic displays, if present, may be difficult to ignore or avoid.  The right of parents to make decisions about exposure to such imagery for each child is certainly hindered by conspicuous displays at places that cannot be avoided.   But this is true everywhere they might need to go with a child.

Whether we like it or not, abortion is a political issue and a campaign issue.  It is entitled to take a place alongside every other issue when the people go to the polls.  The signs, by all accounts, reveal truths to women about abortion that are otherwise hidden.   And we do not want to venture carelessly into something that could encourage future efforts to further regulate speech based on the gauzy and difficult-to-pin-down rubric of ‘psychological harm.’

Can an arrangement be arrived at to balance the many sides, and does HB320 as written, achieve that balance?

It does not, and perhaps can not, and there’s the rub.

If there is any likelihood that this legislation will empower moderators to arbitrarily exclude political or campaign speech they decide is offensive (or can be interpreted by them to pose psychological harm–or invite additional attacks on speech under similar grounds by future legislatures), then the risk to speech is not worth the effort.  We cannot and should not limit or intimidate people from engaging in political speech – one of the primary reasons for my opposition to SB 120 last session, which sadly is not slated for any kind of amendment or repeal in 2015 that I can find.

HB320 means well, but then so do many liberals when they defend a welfare state destined to collapse and do greater harm than good.  The risk to speech is too great.  In this case, I think the people will have to make accommodations to protect it.

Amendments to HB 320 are said to be in the works to address these concerns.  We’ll have to keep an eye on this to see where that leads.

 

 

>