- Washington Free Beacon -
http://freebeacon.com -
Freedom of Expression Under Assault
Posted By Sonny Bunch On July 9, 2015 @ 11:38 am In Culture | Comments Disabled
We spend a lot of time talking about how social media outrage mobs use Twitter and Facebook and the like to shut down debate and enforce the boundaries of discussion. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the government has far more power to stifle expression. Three recent cases demonstrate that nicely.
First up are the government’s efforts to silence Reason magazine. After a few of the site’s (notoriously troublesome) commenters tweeted that a judge should be put in a wood chipper, the feds launched an investigation as to the identity of the commenters. The investigation and the chilling effect therein was bad enough; far worse was the fact that the magazine was forced by court order not to discuss the case:
The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.
Just to hammer home the point: A government entity was allowed to silence a journalistic enterprise from reporting on a matter of political importance. This is outrageous.
Similarly outrageous are the efforts made by a judge to stop people from expressing themselves near his courthouse. Ken White has the details over at Popehat:
But that’s only the beginning. Judge Mahon goes on:
Demonstrations or dissemination of materials that degrade or call into question the integrity of the Court or any of its judges (e.g., claiming the Courts, Court personnel or judges are “corrupt,” biased, dishonest, partial, or prejudiced), thereby tending to influence individuals appearing before the Courts, including jurors, witnesses, and litigants, shall be prohibited on the Duval County Courthouse grounds.
In other words, handing passersby a print-out of this post, in which I am about to say that Judge Mahon is biased, dishonest, partial, prejudiced, and a stone idiot who has no business presiding over parking ticket appeals, is prohibited on courthouse grounds, and on surrounding sidewalks, and even some sidewalks across the street, in Jacksonville, Florida.
Once again: A government entity attempted to silence a journalistic enterprise from expressing itself on a matter of political importance. That’s no good!
Finally, there’s the case of the Oregon bakery told to shut up about its disinterest in being forced to serve gay weddings. This was not, as some reported, a gag order. But as Walter Olson notes at Ricochet, it was troubling nonetheless:
That’s not how Oregon saw it. It chose to go after the Kleins over appearances they did in national conservative media, and over having posted a sign on their closed business thanking supporters and promising to continue the fight. (They continue to sell cakes they bake at home.) Included as subjects of this complaint were national media interviews in which the Kleins, along with statements about what had gone through their mind when they turned down the lesbian couple’s request, added a few forward-looking statements such as “we can see this becoming an issue and we have to stand firm.” The window posting, meanwhile, included the language “This fight is not over. We will continue to stay strong. Your religious freedom is becoming not free anymore. It is ridiculous that we cannot practice our faith.”
Remarkably, as Scott Shackford noted at Reason, both the state agency and Avakian — see pp. 22-26 of his ruling — interpreted these statements as unambiguously announcing a forward-looking intent to discriminate in future transactions. Avakian’s ruling neither notices nor engages the objection that speech by the targets of a government enforcement action seeking to rally public support for their cause might need more careful First Amendment handling than the announcement of, say, a gender preference in a classified ad.
Seriously, though: What’s up with government entities trying to stifle speech in recent weeks? Knock it off, guys.
Article printed from Washington Free Beacon:
http://freebeacon.comURL to article:
http://freebeacon.com/blog/obamas-america-smdh/
