“First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” on The Daily Caller

Irony is defined as “the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.” The term doublespeak means “evasive, ambiguous language that is intended to deceive or confuse.” (more)

The too-long-tolerated crime of leftist university students depriving invited speakers of their freedom of speech by drowning them out with shouts and threats of violence is finally getting its day in court. And, true to form, that great defender of freedom of speech, the American Civil Liberties Union, is defending the very students who showed no appreciation whatsoever of others’ freedom to express views contrary to their own.
Don’t think for a minute that Jim Gilchrist of The Minutemen is finally getting long-delayed justice for being shouted down and physically assaulted by Columbia University student radicals in 2006. No, it doesn’t look like prosecutors in New York are ready yet to bring charges against liberals who silence conservatives. But in California’s Orange County, things are different, and DA Tony Rackauckas has refused to drop charges against eleven Muslim student radicals who are charged with conspiracy and disrupting a public event when they forced Israel’s soft-spoken ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, from the stage on Feb. 8 of last year. The students all have been charged with two misdemeanors, and face only minor penalties — probably a few months of probation and a few days of community service or, at worst, six months in jail. (more)

What happened in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday was a national tragedy. It was not, however, the work of inflammatory rhetoric from the right, left, or anywhere else. Nor would it have been prevented if Arizona had harsher gun laws. Drawing on these false sources of blame, two congressmen have proposed separate pieces of legislation—one against speech, the other against guns—that will curtail constitutionally protected freedoms without deterring future attacks. (more)

Ronald Reagan quipped that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”  And so it goes with modern government-directed campaign finance programs — schemes designed to harm traditionally-funded candidates (those who raise money by persuading individuals to make voluntary donations) and make it easier for government-funded candidates to promote their message. (more)

The so-called DISCLOSE Act currently under consideration in the Senate is an affront to personal liberties protected under the First and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. This knee-jerk reaction to Citizens United v. FEC constitutes a clear and present danger not only to the expressly stated freedom of speech listed in the First Amendment, but to the reasonable expectation of privacy and freedom of association American citizens have held throughout this country’s proud history. (more)

I was at a town hall meeting back in Texas recently and a local man came up to me afterwards to talk about his concerns over where our country was headed, something to do with a fiery inferno and a hand basket.  As he was talking to me, I noticed his t-shirt: “I love my Bible,” with a picture of the Book; and “I love my guns,” with a picture of two Colt 45s.  Naturally they were in the right order; after all he was the local preacher. (more)

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan has a history of showing keen interest in devising ways to shape and increase regulation of speech, particularly hate speech and pornography, a review of her public comments and writings show. (more)

Lindsay Lohan’s spent more time in court than Elena Kagan. (more)

Watching the liberal media claw at Rand Paul like a pack of rabid hyenas has been particularly frustrating, considering Paul could so easily turn the the fight around on them. (more)

“Congress shall make no law … 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.” (more)

Three months ago, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark First Amendment decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court decided that Congress may not prohibit funding of political speech by corporations, labor unions, and nonprofit groups. Congress promised a quick response to that decision. That response—the DISCLOSE Act—has one good feature—and several bad ones. (more)

What’s legal for billionaires to do alone, but illegal for you to do with your neighbors?  Until a federal court decision last Friday, the surprising answer was:  spend freely on political ads. (more)

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian legal group, has posted on its website the results of a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling: (more)

The five Supreme Court Justices who formed the majority in Citizens United v. FEC—in which the Court held that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to call for the election or defeat of candidates—can be forgiven if they view certain corporations that benefited from their ruling as a bunch of ingrates. Since Citizens United was decided in January, a large group of media corporations, including the ones that own the New York Times and Washington Post, is still spending millions of dollars criticizing the decision as disastrous for democracy. In doing so, these corporations have ignored one basic fact: If Citizens United had sanctioned the suppression of speech merely because it is uttered by a corporation, then it would have opened the door for Congress to censor media corporations’ speech. (more)

American democracy is in peril. (more)