-
-
Fact-finding missions
Last night, I did something I seldom do these days. I sat through about 30 minutes of punditry on CNN to get a sense of how the mainstream media is spinning Sen. Obama's trip to the Middle East.
One CNN house commentator, David Gergen, with whom I usually agree, said that Obama made his "first mistake" of his campaign not by meeting with Iraq Prime Minister Maliki, but by divulging a private conversation in which Maliki agreed with the presumptive Democratic candidate that it's time for a timetable, and that 2010 is as good a deadline for withdrawal as any.
"He's (Obama) in no position to negotiate withdrawal. He's not the commander-in-chief," Gergen said. A network staff reporter then responded by saying that Obama is "presumptuous" not presumptive, and that the trip overseas was intended to be a "fact-finding mission" only. Given what this country has done with "facts," over the past eight years, and all the two-bit fact counterfeiters, that contention is laughable.
The larger issue is what is Obama supposed to do, when confronted with what has come to be called, euphemistically, the "situation on the ground"-- play deaf, dumb, and blind?
Does Maliki have to serve Bush with an eviction notice to make it any more obvious that the country we've occupied for the past six years no longer wants us there?
Have we had so much secrecy, during the Bush years, that an attempt at openness, on the part of a prospective president, looks like presumptousness to us? The obdurate insistence by the mainstream media of maintaining control of information by selectively spinning it is, ultimately, no different than the campaign of redaction, and revision, it is seeking to expose.
If former secretary of state, Colin Powell, went shopping for uranium in Niger before accepting that there was any, and if Dick Cheney went hunting for weapons of mass destruction before committing us to an irrelevant, and seemingly endless, military engagement, this country, and planet, would be in far better shape.
Likewise, if secretarys of state, as well as our current president, paid attention to facts on the ground, we'd be out of Iraq by now, and a strike against Iran would be no more imminent than walking on Mercury. Last night, I did something I seldom do these days. I sat through about 30 minutes of punditry on CNN to get a sense of how the mainst... more -
Fact-finding missions
Last night, I did something I seldom do these days. I sat through about 30 minutes of punditry on CNN to get a sense of how the mainstream media is spinning Sen. Obama's trip to the Middle East.
One CNN house commentator, David Gergen, with whom I usually agree, said that Obama made his "first mistake" of his campaign not by meeting with Iraq Prime Minister Maliki, but by divulging a private conversation in which Maliki agreed with the presumptive Democratic candidate that it's time for a timetable, and that 2010 is as good a deadline for withdrawal as any.
"He's (Obama) in no position to negotiate withdrawal. He's not the commander-in-chief," Gergen said. A network staff reporter then responded by saying that Obama is "presumptuous" not presumptive, and that the trip overseas was intended to be a "fact-finding mission" only. Given what this country has done with "facts," over the past eight years, and all the two-bit fact counterfeiters, that contention is laughable.
The larger issue is what is Obama supposed to do, when confronted with what has come to be called, euphemistically, the "situation on the ground"-- play deaf, dumb, and blind?
Does Maliki have to serve Bush with an eviction notice to make it any more obvious that the country we've occupied for the past six years no longer wants us there?
Have we had so much secrecy, during the Bush years, that an attempt at openness, on the part of a prospective president, looks like presumptousness to us? The obdurate insistence by the mainstream media of maintaining control of information by selectively spinning it is, ultimately, no different than the campaign of redaction, and revision, it is seeking to expose.
If former secretary of state, Colin Powell, went shopping for uranium in Niger before accepting that there was any, and if Dick Cheney went hunting for weapons of mass destruction before committing us to an irrelevant, and seemingly endless, military engagement, this country, and planet, would be in far better shape.
Likewise, if secretarys of state, as well as our current president, paid attention to facts on the ground, we'd be out of Iraq by now, and a strike against Iran would be no more imminent than walking on Mercury. Last night, I did something I seldom do these days. I sat through about 30 minutes of punditry on CNN to get a sense of how the mainst... more -
COINTELPRO Comes to My Town: My First-Hand Experience With Government Spies
Finally, at long last, I have something in common with Muhammad Ali.
No, I'm not the heavyweight champion of the world, and haven't been named spokesperson for Raid bug spray. Like "the Greatest" - not to mention far too many others -- I have been a target of state police surveillance for activities -- in my case against the death penalty -- that were legal, non-violent, and, so we assumed, constitutionally protected. In classified reports compiled by the Maryland State Police and the Department of Homeland Security, I am "Dave Z." This nickname was given by an undercover agent known to us as "Lucy." She sat in our meetings of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, smiling and engaged, taking copious notes about actions deemed threatening by the Governor of Maryland, Robert Ehrlich. Our seditious crimes, as Lucy reported, involved such acts as planning to set up a table at the local farmer's market and writing up a petition. Adding a dash of farce to this outrage, she was monitoring us in the liberal enclave of Takoma Park, Maryland, a place known more for vegans than violence, more for tie-dying than terrorism. Finally, at long last, I have something in common with Muhammad Ali. ... more -
Rendering public opinion irrelevant - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
ne of the most striking aspects of our political discourse, particularly during election time, is how efficiently certain views that deviate from the elite consensus are banished from sight -- simply prohibited -- even when those views are held by the vast majority of citizens. This discrepancy is a potent commentary on how our democracy functions. ne of the most striking aspects of our political discourse, particularly during election time, is how efficiently certain views that d... more
-
Lawsuits Against Bloggers Seen Rising
When Christopher Grotke answered a late-night knock on the door, he did not expect to find the deputy sheriff on his doorstep serving notice that he was being sued. Nor was he prepared for the charge: libel.
bloggers sued
(ABC News Photo Illustration)
Someone had posted a comment on his citizen-journalism Web site, iBrattleboro.com, stating that a woman in Brattleboro, Vt., was having an extramarital affair. The accused woman then sued Grotke and his Web site co-founder for failing to edit or delete the comment.
The blogging community increasingly is subject to lawsuits and threats of legal action running the gamut from subpoenas to cease-and-desist notices.
Since blogging became popular in about 2004, there have been 159 civil and criminal court actions involving bloggers, according to the nonprofit Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) in New York. Seven cases have resulted in verdicts against bloggers, with cumulative penalties totaling $18.5 million. Many more legal actions never result in trial. When Christopher Grotke answered a late-night knock on the door, he did not expect to find the deputy sheriff on his doorstep serving ... more -
The Freedom to Offend
By Jayne Lyn Stahl
Thinking about the fracas surrounding The New Yorker cover reminds me of other political cartoons like, for instance, the cariacature of the Prophet Muhammad, in violation of Islamic law, which drew the wrath of the Muslim world.
I'm reminded, too, of a speech made by a young congressman, before the House of Representatives, on February 18, 1947; Richard Nixon:"Mr. Speaker, on February 6, when the Committee on Un-American Activities opened its session at 10 o'clock, it had by previous investigation, tied together the loose end of one chapter of a foreign-directed conspiracy whose aim and purpose was to undermine and destroy the government of the United States...It is essential as Members of this House that we defend vigilantly the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But we must bear in mind that the rights of free speech and free press do not carry with them the right to advocate the destruction of the very government which protects the freedom of an individual to express his views."
And, here we are, more than 60 years later, in the same ballpark, with another pitcher, and dealing with the same mindset, as reflected by President George W. Bush who observes that: "Every nation in every region now has a decison to make--either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." All we need do is substitute the word "Communist" for "terrorist," et voila! But, can we sit back, and let the First Amendment be sodomized by those who understand control better than consciousness, and allow artists to be called over the coals for what amounts to a dumb joke?
The New Yorker is a magazine, founded in the 1920's, which has been around longer than the administrations of either Presidents Nixon or Bush. Notably, too, in the 1920's, the greatest novel of the English language, James Joyce's "Ulysses," was banned by the Tariff Act , and confiscated at American borders, on grounds of obscenity. This was right around the time that an organization of writers, PEN, was formed to protect artists from the arbitrary stroke of the censor's hand.
Who can forget the memorable words of another president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, about a decade after the launching of a magazine whose name has become synonymous with quality, humor, satire, poetry, political commentary, and first-rate cartoons: "We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. The third is freedom from want...The fourth is freedom from fear."
Arguably, humor is optional with the vehicle, and it is subjective. One person may feast on what another finds tasteless. While there may be some who find a political cartoon disturbing, the ramifications of self-censorship, as well as societal pressure to redact that which offends, must be resisted as an outrage to all who view dissent as a vital ingredient for democratic, and higher order, thinking.
Whether we think the Obama cartoon was satire, flawed or otherwise, or simply over-the-top, we must agree with author, and past president of PEN American Center, Salman Rushdie, when he asks: "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." When public opinion dictates what is acceptable, there can be no art, and without art, there can be no diversity. By Jayne Lyn Stahl ... more -
South Florida City Hall Meetings Ban Politics...
Ummm...to me this seems like a 1st amendment violation...
By Susannah Bryan and Rachel Hatzipanagos | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
July 15, 2008
COOPER CITY - Dare to wear an Obama or McCain campaign pin to a Cooper City meeting and you might get hit with a $75 fine.
That's if city leaders embrace an ordinance that would outlaw wearing buttons or clothing with a political message at city events held on public property. Political signs and literature, profane language and boisterous behavior also would be banned under the plan the commission is expected to discuss tonight.
Commissioner John Sims said on Monday he is pushing the proposal as a way to restore polite behavior at the city's notoriously raucous public meetings. "You've got to hit people where it hurts, in their pocket," he said, explaining that a $75 fine would discourage rowdiness.
Sims' proposal comes two months after the commission approved a resolution that discourages verbal attacks during public meetings. At the time, the commission said the measure was an attempt to bring civility to City Hall. Sims, the target of a failed recall effort earlier this year, said the current rules don't go far enough.
Longtime resident Gladys Wilson railed against Sim's new plan. "I have a First Amendment right to wear a pin, a necklace, a pair of earrings, whatever I want to wear," she said. "It's just ridiculous what's going on."
Mayor Debbie Eisinger doubts such a measure would be legal.
"On public property, I don't think that you can stop someone from campaigning or taking some political activity," she said.
City Attorney David Wolpin said former City Clerk Susan Bernard drafted the proposed ordinance at Sims' request without consulting him. Wolpin declined to discuss the proposal, saying he planned to share his legal opinion with commissioners tonight.
Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, said the proposed law is "clearly unconstitutional" and goes too far in prohibiting free speech.
But Marc Rohr, also a law professor at NSU, said the city's elected leaders have the right to limit free speech, including campaign buttons, during public meetings. "There are certain settings in which government entities can control the forum," Rohr said.
Earlier this year, some residents targeted Sims, saying they wanted him removed from office for a now-defunct blog registered to him that posted anti-Semitic statements about the mayor. Sims has said he had nothing to do with the postings.
Sims said local campaigns were the main target of his new proposal, but added he has no problem banning Obama or McCain campaign buttons.
"The meetings should not give a venue for people to express their political views," he said. "My attempt is to limit political grandstanding inside City Hall."
Diane Sori, an outspoken critic of City Hall, said she plans to speak out against the measure.
"This is not how freedom of speech works in the United States," she said.
Commissioner Lisa Mallozzi said Sims' plan goes too far.
"I don't think this would be passed. If it does I'll be dumbfounded," Mallozzi said.
Walt Jolliff, a Sims supporter, compared some City Commission meetings to a "Salem witch hunt."
While critics say the new rule would trample on free speech, Jolliff doesn't share those concerns.
"You have to start some place," he said.
Ummm...to me this seems like a 1st amendment violation... ... more -
Wanted: Neo Nazi with typing skills. Why is the Guardian advertising BNP jobs?
"Fancy a career as a neo-fascist? Want to boast Nick Griffin as a friend of a friend? Think fellow traveller would look good on your CV? Then I hope you are reading the Guardian," says Daniel Finkelstein, a Times newspaper blogger, on hearing that the Guardian's jobs pages are carrying advertisements for positions at the BNP, a notoriously hateful British political party which describes itself as "the foremost patriotic political party in Great Britain".
Ok, so its a rival newspaper slating the Guardian, and quite why the BNP would target Guardian readers for its recruitment campaign I don't know, but is the Times blogger wrong to be so incensed?
Should anyone - hateful, racist, fascist or not - be able to advertise a job anywhere? Did the Guardian do the right thing in running these ads? Free speech is one thing, but by publishing this job advert the newspaper presumably had to make sure it passed their editorial standards, and as a publisher it has control over content, and doesn't have to publish just anything...?
"Fancy a career as a neo-fascist? Want to boast Nick Griffin as a friend of a friend? Think fellow traveller would look good on your C... more -
DEATH OF THE INTERNET !!
Alex Jones addresses the real threat of the future corporate ownership of the internet. Among many negative results some outcomes are, this would mean not only costly membership for everything, but also that you would no longer have your own domain. Everything will be under a sub domain. Like with Myspace, everything will be regulated and heavily controlled.
I know there is a bit of info on current about this. But I think this issue is so important especially for groups like current.
We are talking about the internet as we know it dieing !!! No more free speech, no more abundance of knowledge and information, this is a huge disaster.
Please educate yourself and others on this. Lets not let this happen !!!! Alex Jones addresses the real threat of the future corporate ownership of the internet. Among many negative results some outcomes are,... more -
'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights
" NEW YORK - Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.
ADVERTISEMENT
Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors." " NEW YORK - Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular ... more -
Get Up stand Up Mario Savio
this says it all ... its time again to rally the people of this country
-
Does free speech still apply on the Internet of private servers?
Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
-
Provocateurs Planning Violence At DNC
TruthAlliance.net | July 2, 2008
We Are Change Colorado has now become aware that another group, Unconventional Action, is planning on being violent at the DNC protests. Violence is a broad term. Some argue that property damage is violent, others might tell you it sends a message. To most of the Truth Alliance and We Are Change Colorado activists, there is no message to property damage and is in fact, a form of violent behavior. In the eyes of the law, property damage is completely, without debate, illegal.
To make the long story short, Unconventional Action seems to be open about their plans for the DNC. Their website, which can be found here: http://www.unconventionalaction.org/ has one link which is pretty disturbing.
Under the link, “The Strategies: How We Win,” a section titled: Denver: Disrupt the DNC, clearly outlines for “Anarchists and Anti-Authoritarians” to “join (them) in Denver, Colorado, August 24th-28th as (they) engage in coordinated Direct Actions against the Democratic National Convention, its corporate sponsors, and the military/police occupation of public space.”
Direct Action is further defined on their website as getting directly involved rather than relying on a representative to do the framework. Their website goes on to further state that they are:
“currently organizing meetings, propaganda, and consultas in our communities and encourage those in other regions to do the same.
(They) aim to organize militant direct action that manifests opposition to both the Democratic and Republican Parties. As anti-authoritarians, (They) oppose so-called representational politics, but even those who still believe in it must understand that we can only have leverage over our rulers by showing our own power, that we must back our demands by demonstrating that we can interfere with their business as effectively as they interfere with our lives”
This can all be found on their website at the top link titled, What Is Unconventional Action?
Unconventional Action was attending the Alliance for Real Democracy meeting which is a new group that has formed in light of the information that was presented here on Truth Alliance about Re-Create 68. Many members of Re-Create 68 have broken away from the group and saw that the intentions of R-68’s demonstrations held no message and potentially could get protesters arrested, agitated and/or violent, aside from the fact that Truth Alliance got direct verbal confirmation that there is violence in the planning of some of the demonstrations. Read both of the articles of information about Re-Create 68 at these links:
TruthAlliance.net | July 2, 2008 ... more -
'Free speech zones' to make comeback Denver Democratic Convention
And you thought it was just Republicans that wanted to stifle free speech.
"The infamous "free speech zone," set to make a comeback at Denver's upcoming Democratic National Convention, needs to be within earshot of delegates, a coalition of civil liberties advocates backed by the ACLU said Monday.
Chain link fencing or chicken wire at the end of the parade route, about 700 feet away from the Pepsi Center under the current plan, would separate demonstrators and protesters from other convention attendees, the Rocky Mountain News reported. The coalition have amended their pending lawsuit against the United States Secret Service and the City and County of Denver, filed in May, saying that the plan could violate the visitors' First Amendment rights, echoing the corralling and effective silencing of protesters at the 2004 gala in Boston. A judge in that case had ruled the "free speech zones" unconstitutional, but said that the suit was filed too late to order that plans be changed.
"No human voice, or any other sound," ACLU counsel said in Monday's amended complaint, "can ever hope to reach a person at the entrance."
The case will go to trial on July 29.
Preparations for the upcoming convention, for which Denver has been federally granted $50 million, may include military choppers, as seen during a mid-June Department of Justice drill, details of which could not be revealed by the Denver Police Department. Lt. Nathan Potter, a military spokesperson with Special Operations Command, called the exercise "routine preparation for the global war on terrorism."
Denver Sheriff division chief Marie Kielar also told Colorado Confidential in May that her department is preparing for convention-related arrests to top 1,200. The City and County of Denver will not make publicly available detention plans, such as where those arrested will be held, before the convention. In addition to the May suit, the ACLU has demanded that the City and County make publicly available the procedures it plans to follow in processing those arrested at its downtown jail.
The Monday complaint called not only for a protest zone closer to the Pepsi Center, but also that it large enough to host all demonstrators, and for searches to be conducted only when there is probable cause.
"Simply put, we are going to abide by the Constitution," Denver city attorney David Fine said Monday. And you thought it was just Republicans that wanted to stifle free speech. ... more -
Protest zone too far away says ACLU
The Democratic National Committee established a protest zone for the National Convention in Denver that is "two football fields away." The ACLU is suing, claiming first amendment free speech rights are restricted since delegates will not be able to hear the protests. The Democratic National Committee established a protest zone for the National Convention in Denver that is "two football fields away."... more
-
Score One for the Gun Guys
By Jayne Lyn Stahl
Today’s Supreme Court decision striking down the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, in a 5-4 ruling, and affirming so-called Second Amendment rights was predictable, and comes as no surprise. While the dissent and dissenters on the court were formidable, there was no wiggle room.
Now if only the court were to defend the First Amendment, and expand the scope of their ruling on child rape to make capital punishment unconstitutional insofar as it violates the Eighth Amendment injunction against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Some historical perspective is in order, too, as some on the bench have suggested. The Second Amendment is part of a Constitution that was written in the years following the Revolutionary War when the framers were accustomed to living with the constant fear of what we would characterize today as the “insurgency.” Times have changed, indeed. Now those who resist occupation, and defend human rights, have come to be seen as insurgents, and weapons themselves far outnumber those who use them.
While the gun lobby may crack open that bottle of champagne, this is a victory that thrives in theory, but one that can only be condemned in practice. The gravest threat to a generation of youngsters of color, in our inner cities, has just won the good housekeeping stamp of approval from the highest court in the land. And, while poverty, disease, and ignorance are precarious, there is nothing more dangerous than a handgun, or firearm, in the wrong hands.
Senator Obama is on the mark when he suggests that the right to bear arms doesn’t mean the right to do so without limitation, and oversight required to protect the community at large, as well as inner city youth who are rapidly joining the endangered species list.
By Jayne Lyn Stahl ... more -
Just A Start?
By Jayne Lyn Stahl
A jubiliant, and optimistic bunch, after the high court’s decision to strike down D.C.’s handgun ban, the National Rifle Association used what they say was a “very encouraging” ruling to suggest, in the words of the group’s lawyer,C.D. Michel, that “it was just a start.”
Proving that they don’t let any grass grow under their feet, on Thursday, the NRA sued the city of Chicago over its handgun ban and, on Friday, continued by legally challenging San Francisco’s ban on handguns in its public housing.
If you think the California wildfires have been intense, stay tuned as the Second Amendment posse works to strike down, and undo, every piece of gun control legislation, and as many restrictions, rightful or otherwise, on handguns, and firearms, as they can, with support from John McCain.
But, not everybody is going to take the Supreme Court decision lying down. And, not everyone is going to cower in fear of the gun lobby. San Francisco’s Mayor, Gavin Newsom, vows to “vigorously fight the NRA,” implying that no rational person could possibly think that making possession of handguns legal again, in city housing projects, is a responsible, and sane, thing to do in a city where one can’t even watch five minutes of local news without hearing about another victim of gunfire, which accounts for 80% of all homicides.
Bravo to Mayor Newsom!
San Francisco has a long, and distinguished, history as a trend-setter, dating back to the 1950’s, when poet, and publisher, Lawrence Ferlinghetti stood up to censors who wanted to prevent the publishing of Allen Ginsberg’s landmark poem “Howl.”
It would be refreshing to hear the Supreme Court defend newspapers, and media, by ruling that the government ’s attempts to review, and censor, a “Sixty Minutes” interview with Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich in which he discusses his role in the massacre at Haditha is unconstitutional insofar as it violates the First Amendment separation of press and state. But, the case would have to go before the court first, and the newspaper, and mainstream media, lobby isn’t as strong as the weapons lobby. If it were, an Australian mogul, Rupert Murdoch, wouldn’t be able to come to town, and buy everything that isn’t nailed down.
Good for the mayor for reminding us that San Francisco isn’t just a city that wears its reputation for being liberal like a faux badge, has Nader as its middle name, and is just about cable cars, and gay marriage, but one that will return to its dissenter roots and fight this ludicrous, and dangerous, court decision whose impact will be felt by the most disenfranchised, and least vocal, among us.
We look to Chicago’s mayor to follow in Newsom’s footsteps, and Senator Obama to keep the momentum going.
But, having said that, you may recall that President Clinton who, while in office responded to the shooting of an inner city sixth grader by one of her friends, by supporting some of the most stringent gun control legislation enacted in a generation. Well, while campaigning for Hillary, he intimated that, when he was a candidate, he was told that if he tried to take on the health care industry, he’d never get elected.
One can only hope that Sen. Obama hasn’t been presented with the same warning and that, should he become our 44th president, he will be mindful, and consistent, in his approach to legislation that will provide regulation, and much-needed limits, on the Second Amendment frights, and not bow to the NRA the way others before him have succumbed to the weight of health care lobbyists By Jayne Lyn Stahl ... more -
The future looks bright!
This 14-year-old girl has got the right stuff. I admire her creativity, courage, and wisdom. Equality now!
-
Pedofile Group (NAMBLA) Man/Boy Love Constitutionally Backed??? The ACLU and NAMB...
So the members are in a club which gives them all the tools to molest children but they are not guilty until they commit the crime?? The ACLU thinks they have this right.
This is what we get when the constitution is translated with emotions and not with common sense and right and wrong. The members/offenders are deserving of death sentence or life prison terms to me. There is also a woman's auxiliary for woman/girl love.
by the way ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Spoke at NAMBLA Meeting in 1981,
I just don't get it and it's all in the name of freedom??
So the members are in a club which gives them all the tools to molest children but they are not guilty until they commit the crime?? ... more -
Freedom of business speech
Some of the most sensible decisions of the Supreme Court's centrist majority have concerned business law, and yesterday the Justices handed down another good one. The decision will protect the free-speech rights of all parties – companies and unions – during labor negotiations.
At issue in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown was a 2000 California law that prohibited businesses from using state grants or program funds to "assist, promote or deter union organizing." That sounds neutral enough, even fair. However, at the behest of the labor lobby, the law was designed as an elaborate sleight-of-hand to use taxpayer money to prevent businesses from communicating with their employees about labor policies or problems.
In practice, the recordkeeping requirements made it nearly impossible for businesses to certify that they hadn't used state funds for union-related activities. Then it imposed huge compliance and litigation costs. The law also contained broad exemptions to the general spending ban, including allowing state funds to promote certain types of unionization, such as voluntarily recognizing unions without secret ballots, i.e., "card check." How convenient.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 7-2 majority, ruled that California "plainly could not directly regulate noncoercive speech about unionization by means of an express prohibition." So despite the state's legal cunning, its restrictions were pre-empted by Congress's intent in the 1935 Wagner Act (and its subsequent revisions) to leave labor policy neutral.
At least 20 other states have rules similar to California's on the books or plans to pass them. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown should shut down such antibusiness targeting, and the U.S. will be fairer for it. Some of the most sensible decisions of the Supreme Court's centrist majority have concerned business law, and yesterday the Justices h... more
-
related topics
Free Speech
Contributors (531)
Free Speech
