Tuesday, May 17, 2016
There's a moderately big controversy right now over disclaimers, involving some of the usual suspects, the FEC, CREW, Vice Chair Ann Ravel, de facto leader of the pro-censorship wing of the evenly split FEC.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/05/17/19684/death-threats-directed-elections-regulator
Instead, in a sign of how toxic American politics have become, it spawned unbridled ugliness, including death threats that have drawn the attention of law enforcement.
"“Die, fascist, die!” one anonymous person wrote to Ravel in an email reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.“Hope you have a heart attack,” read another email.
“Go fall down about ten flights of stairs,” yet another person wrote.
Other threats, while less overt, are equally disquieting."
"I'm going to push you down the stairs" is a threat. "I hope you fall down the stairs" is not.
I'll need to look into this a bit further. Maybe true threats were made, but not quoted.
It is reasonable of the internet tell Ravel to keep her hands off. I've testified to the effect three times, first in the 1998 Leo Smith AO,and then in two subsequent requests for comment on internet policy.
What sparked this particular round involves yet another false complaint by CREW, alleging express advocacy where the wasn't any.
http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044363872.pdf
Ravel's statement of reasons.
I'm somewhat confused about what the facts are; is it about some broadcast commericals, or is it about the internet? Apparently both. She's also separately written about wanting to convene another study of the internet. http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044363872.pdf
Lee Goodman responds http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044363864.pdf (to the 2014 case.)
The express advocacy "loophole" was created by Buckley v Valeo. Valeo recognizes that regulation of political speech is problematic for First Amendment reasons. In an attempt to save the statute, the court construed the regulations narrowly, to reach only express advocacy. In later cases, such as McConnell and WRTL II, the Court has redefined express advocacy so it no longer need be express, or advocacy. Whereever the court, or the Commission, draws the line, groups like CREW stand on the other side of the line, making accusations that are false but have some plausible truthiness. They do that in order to chill the speech of their enemies. Generally, CREW considers anyone with enough money to speak effectively as an enemy. So the Valeo experiment was a good attempt at a saving construction, but it hasn't worked. The Court should go back and find that such regulations of political speech are unconstitutional, whether express or implied, whether about issues or candidates,
whether advocacy or neutral newsreporting, all of it is and should be protected by the First Amendment and perhaps substantive due process, equal protection, and the P+I clause.
Ravel is wrong, again. She's like a 1950s school librarian wanting to tell everyone to shush, of fill out more forms and permits in order to be allowed to speak, but that's not what democracy looks like.
Ravel is not the only person facing death threats these days. Bernie Sanders supporters are upset that the Nevada state caucus to select delegates was apparently rigged by a pro-Clinton faction. The chair is some kind of kinfolk of Clinton, I forget the exact connection but there is one.
I'm not advocating death threats or thrown chairs but it seems the Sanders people have a real beef.
I am not a fan of abolishing the caususes. I think they are as close as we get to a national town meeting. It is in the interest of the parties to conduct their caucuses and conventions fairly.
Ron Paul's supporters I think at times felt they were not treated properly at caucuses, and the enthusiasm of the Paul supporters did not carry over to the general election, and the GOP lost.
There were concerns about how the GOP convention would treat Trump and Cruz this year, but Trunp has solidified his victory, at least to the point where he'll get the nomination.
The Clinton faction needs to avoid alienating the Sanders supporters, so stunts like rigged caucuses don't help. I wasn't there, haven't studied the videos, and my sources are mostly reddit scuttlebut. But I suspect there is something to the anger.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/05/17/19684/death-threats-directed-elections-regulator
Instead, in a sign of how toxic American politics have become, it spawned unbridled ugliness, including death threats that have drawn the attention of law enforcement.
"“Die, fascist, die!” one anonymous person wrote to Ravel in an email reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.“Hope you have a heart attack,” read another email.
“Go fall down about ten flights of stairs,” yet another person wrote.
Other threats, while less overt, are equally disquieting."
But these are not threats. True threats are not protected by the constitution. Public criticism of corrupt public officials is. If the cops are involved, I want to know who called them, and exactly what the text in question was. OK, partial answer, in 2014 Edward Holder (that's not Eric Holder) contacted the feds, and now she has access to security goons as needed. They won't say if there's a renewed investigation about more recent comments.
"I'm going to push you down the stairs" is a threat. "I hope you fall down the stairs" is not.
I'll need to look into this a bit further. Maybe true threats were made, but not quoted.
It is reasonable of the internet tell Ravel to keep her hands off. I've testified to the effect three times, first in the 1998 Leo Smith AO,and then in two subsequent requests for comment on internet policy.
What sparked this particular round involves yet another false complaint by CREW, alleging express advocacy where the wasn't any.
http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044363872.pdf
Ravel's statement of reasons.
I'm somewhat confused about what the facts are; is it about some broadcast commericals, or is it about the internet? Apparently both. She's also separately written about wanting to convene another study of the internet. http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044363872.pdf
Lee Goodman responds http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044363864.pdf (to the 2014 case.)
The express advocacy "loophole" was created by Buckley v Valeo. Valeo recognizes that regulation of political speech is problematic for First Amendment reasons. In an attempt to save the statute, the court construed the regulations narrowly, to reach only express advocacy. In later cases, such as McConnell and WRTL II, the Court has redefined express advocacy so it no longer need be express, or advocacy. Whereever the court, or the Commission, draws the line, groups like CREW stand on the other side of the line, making accusations that are false but have some plausible truthiness. They do that in order to chill the speech of their enemies. Generally, CREW considers anyone with enough money to speak effectively as an enemy. So the Valeo experiment was a good attempt at a saving construction, but it hasn't worked. The Court should go back and find that such regulations of political speech are unconstitutional, whether express or implied, whether about issues or candidates,
whether advocacy or neutral newsreporting, all of it is and should be protected by the First Amendment and perhaps substantive due process, equal protection, and the P+I clause.
Ravel is wrong, again. She's like a 1950s school librarian wanting to tell everyone to shush, of fill out more forms and permits in order to be allowed to speak, but that's not what democracy looks like.
Ravel is not the only person facing death threats these days. Bernie Sanders supporters are upset that the Nevada state caucus to select delegates was apparently rigged by a pro-Clinton faction. The chair is some kind of kinfolk of Clinton, I forget the exact connection but there is one.
I'm not advocating death threats or thrown chairs but it seems the Sanders people have a real beef.
I am not a fan of abolishing the caususes. I think they are as close as we get to a national town meeting. It is in the interest of the parties to conduct their caucuses and conventions fairly.
Ron Paul's supporters I think at times felt they were not treated properly at caucuses, and the enthusiasm of the Paul supporters did not carry over to the general election, and the GOP lost.
There were concerns about how the GOP convention would treat Trump and Cruz this year, but Trunp has solidified his victory, at least to the point where he'll get the nomination.
The Clinton faction needs to avoid alienating the Sanders supporters, so stunts like rigged caucuses don't help. I wasn't there, haven't studied the videos, and my sources are mostly reddit scuttlebut. But I suspect there is something to the anger.
Comments:
Post a Comment
