As previously blogged, Barack Obama has attempted to shout down private citizens who bring forth valid criticisms of him by calling them liars, siccing the DOJ on them, or threatening them with legal action. (You know it’s getting bad when the NY Times criticises Obama’s record for truthfulness.)
In the newest attempted coup against the First Amendment, Sen. Obama has threatened anyone who airs “misleading” ads with criminal libel. Apparently, our great constitutional law professor and Law Review all-star has not heard of New York Times and Co. v. Sullivan: a statement needs to be not just false, but maliciously false, in order to be libelous. A statement that is merely “misleading” is entirely within the scope of the First Amendment, especially if such a statement is made against public officials.
Yet, Obama would squelch any advertisement that is in any way “misleading,” a standard which is impossible to meet in a thirty-second clip, regarding subjects about which candidates may have expressed inconsistent views. Unlike the NY Times v. Sullivan standard of objective falsity and proof of malicious intent by the speaker, Obama’s “misleading” standard is as substantial as fog. Ultimately, he is the one who would decide whether an ad is “misleading” on his positions, as he is the final authority on those positions. Functionally, these tactics serve to threaten anyone who may speak out against Obama with criminal prosecution, thus eviscerating the core of our First Amendment rights.
In more action that reveals a frightening disregard for the First Amendment, Obama banned all signs at Saturday’s rally at the University of Mary Washington. (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin.) Mary Washington is a public university; the event was held outdoors, in a public space, to which the public is invited. The words “quintessential public forum” are probably not within Sen. Obama’s vocabulary. If they were, he would be well aware that banning any and all signs, when the Secret Service believes that they pose no threat, is unconstitutional.
Obama’s tactics against those who voice opposition are not topics fit only for a law school classroom; they should enrage Americans who expect to be able to criticise their leaders without fear of criminal prosecution. This is a freedom that liberal Americans exercise every time they criticise President Bush, hold a sit-in for peace, or complain about evangelical leaders - freedoms that are central to the operation of a free and open society. We take it for granted that the police will not come knocking on our doors if we happen to make a YouTube video or a blog post about a person who is asking us for the right to run our country. Obama would take that freedom, so basic as to be unnoticed, and trade it for political power.
Even if Obama were to know that the cases would be dismissed on First Amendment grounds, or the citizens acquitted, it is still incredibly wrong to use the force of government against citizens without the utmost care and judgment. It is no small burden for a citizen to be indicted and arraigned, hire a lawyer, explain one’s pending criminal charges to one’s boss, and fight the police arm of the state. An acquittal hardly means that the entire process was without a heavy price. It is disgusting that Obama would even suggest doing that to ordinary people who have an opinion about their elected officials.
All in all, Gov. Blunt says it far better than I can.
Update: A “Truth Squad” member explains that the truth is not important. That leaves only the “squad,” and we ought to ask why presidential candidates need non-truth squads, staffed with law enforcement officers, marauding about the countryside.
Sphere: Related Content
Thought Crime will not be tolerated in an Obama-nation!
It is astonishing that the press is playing the role of enabler in this suppression of free speech, all because they are in the bag for getting Obama elected no matter what. I asked a 40 year veteran on-air political commentator on San Diego’s KPBS TV and Radio about the looming reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. At first she feigned ignorance of it, but when it was explained to her, she thought it would be a pretty good idea.
I honestly fear the suppression of free speech in this country under a Democrat administration and Congress. Obama is someone who has shown repeatedly an inability to admit when he is wrong, an willingness to lie when his weaknesses are noted, and an absolute endorsement of intimidation of opponents through legal, financial and physical threats. His announcement for his suppoters to “get aggressive” and to “get in the faces” of opponents and neutral voters was immediately followed by vandalism of Republican campaign offices. This in combination of a call for mandatory public service and his national security corps to rival the military is as freightening a vision as Nazism and communism in their heyday in the 20th Century.
Obama’s carefully worded comments about 2nd amendment rights shows he sees banning gun ownership isn’t a Constitutional issue but a political one. He says he wouldn’t effective ban guns legislatively because he doesn’t have the votes in Congress to accomplish it.
This man is single biggest threat to 1st and 2nd amendment rights in the history of this nation and he is poised to become our next President to preside over a Democrat majority in the House and Senate. And the MSM is worried about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriends use of condoms.
He is so arrogant.
The danger is people vote with their hands out and he appeals for that reason.
He is definately dangerous and so are his friends.
Sam Pierce,
Yeah, that’s next. Ugh.
in awe,
Thanks for stopping by! San Diego tends to be pretty conservative. As for the Fairness Doctrine: I don’t think that liberals would want to apply it to broadcast networks, as that is an area dominated by liberals. Rather, they would try to force Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk-radio giants to give “equal time” to their political opponents.
If it is not a scary enough thought, the enforcement will be a nightmare. How does one decide if the chosen opposition sufficiently represents the other side? Could you put on a bunch of idiots to stand in for your political opponents, then call it a day? Do we really want the government mucking about in this??
Barbara,
True, true, and true.
What I’d like to know is who is the source of Obama’s exams that he gave to his students? I’m sure he plaragized them. Probably some professor there at Chicago.
lv,
I wouldn’t go that far (as I simply don’t know enough about his time at Chicago). Exam-writing isn’t necessarily that difficult; the tough part is to write a good exam (one that is representative of what was taught in the course), and then grade that fairly.