When the Supreme Court won’t back your unconstitutional Statist speech suppression antics what is a political party to do? Amend the First Amendment. That’s the plan according to US Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Tom Udall (D- NM).
Related: Jeanne Shaheen Wants to Put an End to Free Speech Meddling With “Our” Elections
They have a familiar name for it, which I’ll share, but let’s first frame it without all the left-wing BS.
Groups Democrats single out who are still subject to taxation and regulation by the Government don’t deserve the same first amendment protections as everyone else.
The Alinskyesque “targeting” buzz-word of choice is ‘Citizens United.’ Almost every Democrat knows those two words but 99% of them have no idea what it means and most of those don’t care.
It’s a Supreme Court decision that says your government can’t ban a movie based on its political content. (Scott Morales did a great job of breaking it down for us here and here.)
And while no one with a wit of sense would every support state control of movies, television, books, plays, or anything else with political content, Democrats are using this to justify using government force to silence speech.
Which brings us back to Schemer, Dustbin, and Ud’all (as in Ud All better shut up on our say so).
“Few decisions in the 200 and some odd years of this republic have threatened our democracy like Citizens United,” Schumer said on Tuesday. …
“Overturning Citizens United,” Schumer said, “is probably more important than any other single thing we could do to preserve this great and grand democracy.”
This is the exact opposite of the truth. McCain-Feingold, which Citizens United overturned, while probably not the most threatening, came close. State power over what is speech and how and when it may be expressed. Having failed to secure a similar prohibition at the national level (states, including New Hampshire, have all manner of cumbersome rules of a similar bent) the cure for Free Speech is to change the First Amendment.
Here’s the gist of it. The Government can prohibit who can speak and how much can be spent on that speech.
I’d like, very much, to get a pulse on this with Senators Shaheen and Hassan. Both have played screeching strains on their Citizens United violins over the years. Parroting the idiot left. As have Congresspersons Kuster and Pappas.
So, members of congress, is it your opinion that movies, books, plays, television shows, or any media you define on your terms should be silenced for political reasons? Feel free to provide details and limits to this mighty State power. For-profits, Non-profits, LLC’s, small business organizations, local or national media, labor or work associations, state, local, or town associations of any persuasion. Who are you suggesting should have the right to more speech and will you, in turn, relieve them of the burden of your taxes and regulations in return?
Or do the Democrats plan to keep a boot on their neck, and a hand over their mouth?
| CNS News
