Finding New Hampshire House Bill 320 (HB320) was like tripping over something in the dark on your way to something else. The thing in the dark is “AN ACT relative to removal of certain campaign materials at the polling place.”
Articles tagged as
Free Speech
Court Rules: Bloggers Same As Journalists
And so are you, for that matter. “The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held unanimously that there is no difference between a journalist for a media outlet and another speaker when it comes to First Amendment protections.”
Muslims who use Twitter….Are Going to Hell
Sheikh Abdul Latif Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh said Wednesday that Muslims who use Twitter or other social media have “lost this world and his afterlife,” as quoted byBBC News. Lost in the next world…they’re going to hell. But I bet…and I’m just guessing here..that if it is OK to lie, cheat, steal, kill, or do anything … Read more
Well, for one thing you could have had an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine at hand….
Less than three weeks ago an Islamic assassin attempted to murder Danish journalist and free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard. After missing at point-blank range, the would-be killer and Hedegaard scuffled, after which the guy with the gun ran away.
The reaction of the Scandinavian mainstream media is interesting. It included denouncing Hedegaard and wishing the assassin had been better with a pistol. Here’s some of what Hedegaard has to say about the incident and its aftermath, from today’s Wall Street Journal:
The Bill Wouldn’t Cover Bloggers, He Said.
Jeb Bradley is a primary sponsor of New Hampshire Senate Bill 120.
Senate Republican Leader Jeb Bradley is proposing changes to New Hampshire’s election laws so voters will know who is paying for negative television campaign ads and material mailed to their homes.
That’s the sell for the low information voter, but the Boston.com article even had a bone for the blogosphere.
Bradley said he set the $5,000 threshold for the independent groups to protect the free speech rights of those spending a small amount. The bill wouldn’t cover bloggers, he said.
‘‘They are not intended to be caught in the net,’’ he said.
I wonder why he felt it necessary to add that point?
Hey! Dufus! Why the Hell Aren’t You Covering “This!?”
Shawn Millerick, the head of the political fiction section at NH Journal, wanted to know why we at GraniteGrok were not covering the real world story about Ann McKluster Kuster not paying her property taxes. The appropriate response was to provide a link to the story I actually wrote on February 5th about how Ann McKluster Kuster was not paying her property taxes. A story I updated with additional comments from the Chairs of both political parties and a bit of exposition with regard to the sources.
It was a story posted the same day as the first story at NH Journal about how Ann McKluster Kuster was not paying her taxes, at roughly 6 am, perhaps even before NHJ pushed out their version; a story with the eponymous title…”Annie McKluster Doesn’t Pay Her Taxes?”
How hard could that be to find? I’m pondering a pithy epithet for the NHJ Political Fiction Department that involves an ass, both hands, and a flashlight.
SB 0120 – Bride of HB 1704 (2012) Political Speech For The Privelaged Few Makes A Come-Back
SB 0120, sponsored by three New Hampshire Senate Republicans, a House Republican and a House Democrat, is nothing more than the free speech killing bride of the amendment to HB1704 proposed last year.
It is the same language, placing the same similarly complex, overly demanding, ambiguous bureaucratic horse collar on political speech, which last May prompted me to ask…
How does one define the “value” of the ‘distribution’ of the speech for the purpose of determining the need for compliance, and therefore registration; and then jumping through hoops to exercise your right to free speech?
(and) Using the internet as an example, how do we prevent lawsuit-filing opponents from manufacturing complaints of violations–simply to intimidate or stifle speech by ensuring it (that speech) never happens…
That was just the beginning of the problems with HB1704, all of which have been reincarnated in SB0120. So let’s get this out of the way right now. I don’t care what ‘good’ you think you will be doing by sponsoring, supporting, or passing this bill. It will, intentionally or not, silence political speech and I can’t believe you can think yourselves Republicans while doing it.
What Steve just said..
H’T Patheos
Tyranny #1 – Where Steve Vaillancourt decides to make it about himself…and approves of overt threats of Tyranny
“They may as well attack me as well.” OK, battle joined – you asked, we’ll oblige: You’re an arse of a Libertarian for siding with Statists that promote promise threaten Governmental Tyranny against fellow citizens simply for holding opposing political views.
This is the first of a series of posts about Governmental Tyranny (or in this case, the threatening thereof) set this against the current Second Amendment Right battle being waged by those that would willingly disarm law-abiding Citizens. Sure, they say that they respect “legitimate” uses for hunting and some forms of sport shooting, but lesser respect for the use of firearms for self-defense. And when it comes to the real reason that the second Amendment exists, to be able to credibly fight against a tyrannical government, it seems that scoffing or demonizing (see our posts on the English wanker Piers Morgan strewn all over the ‘Grok lately) is in order using one of two arguments:
- Do you really expect to win a fight against the US Military?
- The US Government will never become tyrannical – it just can’t happen here.
Here’s the back story: this stems back to Grokster Steve’s post on NH State Rep (Democrat) Cynthia Chase’s threat to use the force of the State of New Hampshire Government to screw over a group of people simply because this recent transplant from RI cannot stand that they want less government over their lives and her philosophy / religion demands more. So she threatens:
“What we can do is make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict freedoms that they think they will find here.”
It seems de riguer / all the rage for Democrats lately: “You disagree with me politically – thus, I shall destroy you personally. I will use Government to take stuff away from you”. As Grokster Steve put it “Sounds more like tyranny“. Rush Limbaugh agreed with Steve! Even the UL recognized the inherent danger in what she said:
A much greater threat lies in the dictatorial impulses of legislators who find it permissible to reshape the electorate in their favor through the selective dismemberment of our liberties.”
Dictatorial. The simple word for this is tyranny. And Grokster Susan got the tweet from NH State Rep (Democrat) Peter Sullivan that amplifies the Democrat mantra:
David Lang Wins Free Speech Award…Say What?
David Lang is the President of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire (PFFNH). The PFFNH has a mission, beyond the obvious one of representing fire fighters, and that is to elect Democrats and progressive (r)epublicans, the latter in places that are unlikely to vote for a ‘D.’
This is a union that has invested no small sum in cash and man hours to elect and keep Democrats in power in New Hampshire. So when I learned that the guy in charge of that union had just received the Nackey Loeb First Amendment Award I though it was a joke.
Blogline of the Day: on Free Speech
Glen Reynolds of Instapundit (emphasis mine): DOES THE U.S. “OVERVALUE” FREE SPEECH? No, I think we undervalue kicking the ass of people who oppose it. Indeed – the response of our President, our Secretary of State, and the others in the Obama Administration (and the Democrat Operatives with bylines in the MSM) have been on … Read more
Ask A NH Democrat – About Free Speech
A private citizen made a lousy YouTube video about six months ago. A few days ago islamo-fascists used it as a vehicle to inflame Muslim uprisings. Under the cover of same, Americans were killed, or in some cases executed. The Obama Administration’s response to the killings was to send the police out in the dark of night and collect the man they believe responsible for making the video.
Muslims, living in third world arm-pits, are familiar with this strategy. People disappearing in the night when they have displeased those in power by saying something that has made them look bad. They do not have free speech. But we do. Well, we are supposed to.
So ask a New Hampshire Democrat…
Glen Reynolds nails it – “Why Barack Obama should resign”
What do you say about a Government that care more about its image, more about its power, and more about re-election than doing what it is supposed to be doing? I don’t often put up entire posts – but this one deserves to be read in it entirety – Glen Reynolds aka “Mr. Instapundit” aka The BlogFaddah” (emphasis mine):
WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN. Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made a film that made the Obama Administration uncomfortable:
Here’s the key bit: “Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”
When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Obama, you’re no Margaret Thatcher when it comes to Free Speech
Glen Reynolds over at Instapundit is just.all.over.this Obama #FAIL and the way it illustrates the hypocrisy that ReProgressives and Socialists have between the words they speak and what they want you to believe about them, and the actions that belie those words and public beliefs, as he floats all over the blogosphere and reports back:
Compare Margaret Thatcher and Rushdie to Obama and Nakoula.
When Salman Rushdie had a death fatwa pronounced on him for a novel considered insulting to Islam, Margaret Thatcher immediately ordered a protective detail to be sent to Rushdie, who took him to an undisclosed secure location. They have been protecting him ever since. Bear in mind that Rushdie had been a severe and vocal critic and political opponent of Thatcher.
Compare and contrast to Obama and Holder’s treatment of Nakoula.
Indeed. Margaret rushed not just to defend a private citizen and his thoughts / speech (Salmon Rushdie) but more importantly, one of the primary pillars of Classical Western Liberalism: Free Speech. Sadly, it seems since that time, Britain has come to embrace a perverse version of Political Correctness in its stead, but at that time, Thatcher understood the power of Free Speech.
Frankly, so does Obama – and fears it.
Will Video Almost No One Has Seen (About Mohammad?) Be Used to Control Internet?
Attacks on 9/11 we knew were coming, a video no one (inflamed) has or will ever see that inflaming Islamists, dead Americans on foreign soil, and repeated claims that in America, the government can’t control everything that goes up on the internet… Sounds like an excuse for Democrats to argue that the US government Should. … Read more
The Promise of The Democrat Police State
Democrats obstructing speech they object to continued… after yesterdays post, which produced some necessary followup. Obama campaign officials obstructed a Pennsylvania reporter from speaking to Obama supporters waiting outside, in line for an Obama rally. A Commenter, C. dog, responded with a link to this story from 2008, at the Democrat National Convention, in Denver.
ABC reporter Asa Eslocker was filming for a story about the financial influence of lobbyists and wealthy donors. While taking pictures of Democrat Senators and others on a public sidewalk he was arrested and detained by the police.
Ask A New Hampshire Democrat … About Silencing The Press
New Hampshire Democrats have no problem silencing speech they object to, or that contradicts their agenda, so it will be interesting to get their take on this.
New Hampshire Democrats Will Love This Idea
Democrats love rich people, when they are Democrats. They take their money and give them taxpayer subsidized loans to prop up their failed business ventures. They love working people, when they are in unions…baling out UAW workers at Car companies when you know that were it non-union Toyota or Honda–plants in America with American workers, they’d have been on their own. And they love free speech as long as it speaks to their political advantage. If you use your money or your speech to say things that run contrary to their agenda you are evil, selfish, a bigot, want people to die, a racist, buying up (local) elections, pushing grandma off a cliff, a monkey in the window, an Uncle Tom, a slut, whore, bitch, bag of meat, or worse.
(Have you noticed that Republican’s don’t do this? I’ve noticed.)
This Democrat hatred of the wrong kind of wealth or opinion was always present but burst from the seams when the Supreme Court overturned the unconstitutional McCain Feingold speech limitations, removing the gag placed there by Democrats and moderates who were gaming the system to their advantage. This uncorking was followed almost immediately in New Hampshire by an amendment to HB1459 that would not only keep unfriendly money out of politics but empower third parties to do the intimidating for the Democrats so they wouldn’t even have to get their hands dirty . With tax-paying business owners effectively silenced only the big money establishment players, the unions, and the left wing media (all exempt businesses engaging in paid political speech), would have the resources to deliver and maintain any consistent political messaging–and all of it predominantly center left, grow government first, speech.
Well there has been a new development in Chicago to silence speech that New Hampshire Democrats will love.
You’re Just Not Smart Enough For Free Speech
All things being equal, the only reason Democrats might have to complain about the affect of FEC vs. Citizens United on paid political speech is if it somehow removed some pre-existing advantage they had. Why else cause such a fuss? The left clearly has just as much right to take advantage of the current state of political discourse as anyone, right?
So that’s not the problem, is it?
The real problem has nothing to do with money. Democrats have tons of that and always have. And they never complained when they could afford more “speech” than anyone else. So spending money on speech is not the issue.
And it has nothing to do with ‘transparency, not the way they have framed it. They want “transparency” because without it they can’t use their media advantage to intimidate opponents into keeping their opinions, ideas, and money to themsleves. Democrats can’t silence groups of donors they cannot specifically identify (see also Obama/FEC trying to force Right wing groups to release donor lists).
So Democrats are not worried about money in political speech. They are worried about money and speech they can’t control. They are worried about people hearing any message that is not their message.
Democrats are afraid of free speech because they simply do not think you are smart enough to know what you are supposed to believe.
GrokWatch: Are the Moultonborough Library Trustees shafting the Lakes Region TEA Party?
Incoming and developing: the Moultonboro Library trustees decide they can’t stand the heat – but are throwing out the kitchen instead of themselves? From Moultonboro Speaks: Moultonboro Public Library Trustees to continue ban on political campaigning in library. At today’s Moultonboro Library Board of Trustees meeting, and without a vote or any discussion among the … Read more