A Victory For the First Amendment
This entry was posted on 6/28/2007 4:16 PM and is filed under Nanny-State,First Amendment.
A little good news, for a change - the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key part of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act earlier this week.
The portion of the bill restricting free speech campaign ads has been determined to be un-Constitutional. This is the biggest objection I've had to the bill, and the one so many people fail to understand. Here's the gist of a conversation I've had several times:
Me: "I think the McCain-Feingold Act should be repealed."
Them: "Why?"
M: "Because it restricts people's free speech."
T: "No, it doesn't."
M: "How would you classify stifling political ads prior to an election, then?"
T: "Well, they're attack ads. And that's bad."
M: "Why? Political speech is free speech. In fact, it's our most precious form of free speech - the right to speak about the government, positively or negatively."
T: "But attack ads are bad, so they should be banned."
This is usually followed by the sound of my head repeatedly hitting the wall - a physical manifestation of my perception of the discussion.
I don't like attack ads. I think they are some of the stupidest, most transparently biased, uninformed, worthless things I've ever seen. That being said, I also believe people have a perfect right to say whatever they want (you know, based on silly things like that "free speech" portion of the First Amendment). If they're willing to pay to say it, good for them; let them waste their money. I'm also willing to change the channel when it comes on.
I'm not about to trample on someone's free speech rights just because I don't agree with them; I outgrew that desire a long time ago. Sadly, much of Madison has not, and the "Them" position above seems to be the norm, and i hear it all the time in conversation, whether I'm involved in it or simply overhearing it.
