The ACRU Blog

John Armor will be on in Bozeman, MT on December 27, 2007 from 11:12-11:57am. He is talking to George Carter and the Valley News and Views Show on KMMS AM 1450. John will be talking about Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and the assault on Christmas on the Oklahoma campus

Peter will be on with Mark Dorenkamp on KGLO, Mason City, IA from 11:00am-11:25 EST. He will be talking about the War on Christmas, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. You can listen live by going here and clicking the "Listen Live" button on the top of the page.

(HT: Power Line)

I just discovered that my most recent Op-Ed has been picked up by a local paper in Texas. My article - "Approval of Religious Expression Reveals False Dichotomy" - appeared in the Jacksboro Gazette-News and The Jack County Herald on June 12, 2007.

A picture says a thousand words, they say. In this case, they're very right!

(HT: NewsBusters)

Let your congressman know that you oppose the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Tell him or her that you support the Free Speech Doctrine instead.

OneNewsNow.com features an article on the ACRU's opposition to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, being advanced by a liberal think tanks and in Congress by Democrats. The article - "Suggested limits on conservative talk radio labeled 'totalitarian'" - comes out of their recent radio interview with Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union.

As Cooper is quoted as saying:

"They're actually proposing that we take the ownership rights of the radio stations from the pre-existing owners and re-allocate them to other people who have approved political views. This is a lot like what is going on in Venezuela today. This looks a lot like what used to go on in the former [Soviet] Eastern Bloc."

The Center for American Progress is a liberal organization in its pedigree and staff. It has now released a "study" on the imbalance between conservative and "progressive" content on talk radio. It wants the government to compel a "balance" between these two.

Even assuming that the study rests on a legitimate definition of what is conservative or "progressive" (which means liberal all the way to socialist), the study is still a foolish enterprise. Thomas Jefferson long ago referred to "the free market of ideas." Modern talk radio is where free speech and free markets meet. Only those shows which attract listeners will attract sponsors to pay the bills. And absent sponsors, any show of any type will fail.

Any study is no better than the quality of its source. All of CAP's officers are former officials in the Clinton Administration. Plus, their funding includes George Soros as a source. Plus, the principal author of the study was a paid consultant to two liberal talk show hosts. The author has never revealed those connections.

Turning to the study itself, it eliminates National Public Radio from the equation. Most sentient beings consider NPR to be a source of "progressive" talk in its commentary shows. Then, the study does not allow for the size of radio stations. Some stations are very small because they serve only a niche market. The larger a station is, the more it has to pay attention to what most people want to hear.

The central failure of the CAP study is it denies the truth that Jefferson spoke, and the commercial truth that any free market radio station that lacks sponsors, will fail. The continuing failure of the "Air America Network" is proof that very few Americans want to hear what CAP is offering. (Most of the officials of CAP have made regular appearances on Air America; so they cannot be ignorant of it.)

This very study shows that there are "progressive" shows out there. It's just that they are wildly unpopular. (In fact, an article on The Radio Equalizer blog gives details on how the "study" slanted the ratio of conservative to "progressive" talk radio by leaving out several well-known liberal shows and hosts.)

CAP is like a buggy whip manufacturer in 1920. They cannot understand why the bottom has dropped out of the buggy whip business. They want the government to force people to buy more buggy whips. CAP and its "researchers" are apparently clueless about both freedom of speech and free markets.

Readers of our blog will note that Peter Ferrara and I will be discussing the Memorial Day anti-war protests by John Edwards and his backers. I for one think that, strictly as a legal matter, the anti-war group has the right peacefully to protest any time it wants. But that a person has a right to do X hardly means that he is required to do X, much less that he is required to do it in a way seemingly designed to offend and antagonize as many people as possible, including and especially the surviving family members of those who died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's hardly news that there's a time and a place for everything. First Amendment jurisprudence has recognized this for decades, holding that the government may adopt reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on othewise protected speech. In my view, the government should be cautious in doing so, because the temptation will always be to smuggle in content-based restrictions in the guise of "time, place and manner" regulation. Sooner rather than later, conservatives will find themselves on the wrong end of this kind of soft-core censorship.

To say that it would be problematic to adopt legal restrictions to regulate the sort of protest Mr. Edwards encouraged is not to say, however, that it should get a free pass. Where is the cultural condemnation? Culture is more powerful than law (because culture shapes law and because, in its way, it regulates unwholesome behavior law cannot and probably should not reach).

So Mr. Edwards & Co. have their rights -- and we have ours. I want to exercise mine by asking Mr. Edwards a question made famous in the McCarthy hearings:

Have you no shame?

How can a man who aspires to lead the nation exploit our most solemn national holiday to use as a campaign artifact? And if he must persist in the tastelessness of doing that, how can he pretend that what is "good for the troops" is to send them stuffed animals and peace emblems? Our soldiers did not train to be children. They trained to be warriors. Perhaps Mr. Edwards could treat them as such, by keeping his stuffed animals at home and sending instead his best wishes for them to DEFEAT THE ENEMY AND RETURN HOME VICTORS.

But if he can't bring himself to do that, could he, for just one day -- Memorial Day -- show a little restraint? Just a little?

While the American Civil Rights Union chose to honor our fallen heroes on Memorial Day, certain others in the state of Washington thought it better to desecrate the gravesites of America's war veterans. (HT: Flynn Files) Their chosen mode of "protest" was both predictable (burning flags) and telling (replaced with scribbled swastikas). Telling of themselves, that is. Especially considering that our servicemen died trying to free the world of the Nazi vermin, and to protect the rights of the scum of the earth to then turn and desecrate the ground where these brave men lay, apparently.

Some will defend the actions of these clandestine protestors in Washington, and in a few similar cases in Boston and elsewhere, as an act of free speech. But it is not. It is the destruction of property - the right to which is protected by another part of the Bill of Rights, Amendment V. And it is disrespectful in the extreme. Now, respect isn't guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. But the men who died defending their country earned their respect, and that can never be taken away from them. The vandals have no respect, however. Nor do they warrant ours.

Paul Mirengoff reports on Power Line about signs of hope that a key section of the McCain-Feingold law -- the blackout provision -- could be in trouble at the Supreme Court:

"Today,...the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, which arises from the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the McCain-Feingold bill). At issue was the part of McCain-Feingold that "blacks out" advertisements made by anyone other than the campaigns in the final six weeks of the election season. Scott linked to [an] account of the argument by Allison Hayward.

"Allison is a leading critic of McCain-Feingold. An even more prominent critic, Senator Mitch McConnell, also attended the argument and also liked what he heard. His optimism was apparent in a report he sent to various bloggers. Like Hayward, McConnell seemed particularly pleased with the questioning by Justice Alito. He noted:

"Justice Alito recognized the massive breadth of this provision during a presidential election year - namely a rolling ban [throughout] the year. Grassroots groups could never run a nationwide ad on CNN or ESPN as it would violate the law in at least one state.This may prove to be another case in which replacing Justice O'Connor with Alito makes all the difference.

"The Scotus blog [presented by Paul's law firm] takes no official position on the merits. But the report filed by Lyle Denniston also concludes that the "blackout" provision appears to be in serious trouble. According to Denniston, 'it seemed apparent at the end of an hour of argument that the 'blackout' period for "electioneering" ads on radio and TV -- if it survived at all -- would have far less effect in restraining such ads.' "

The following quote by ACLU attorney Yale Freeman is astounding:

"There is a time to speak you [sic] religious beliefs and that is in your church."

Mr. Freeman said this in defense of the ACLU's objection to a private citizen offering Bibles to students during lunch at various high schools in Collier County, Florida. (HT: Stop the ACLU)

As local news stories report (here and here), many students and teachers gladly accepted the Bibles and thanked Jerry Rutherford, the giver of the gifts. And those who didn't want them were not forced to take them.

What is so astonishing here is not whether the Bible distribution was permitted by the school district's policy. (Indeed, it seems the policy prohibits such action, though the constitutionality of that policy is certainly in question.)

Rather, the blatant honesty of Mr. Freeman in his opposition to religious speech is what is so amazing. As he went on:

"There's really no reason to introduce it into the secular school system. There is plenty of opportunity to worship freely."

In other words, only Secularism is welcome in schools financed by tax dollars collected from all citizens, including the religious. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with this view.

In essence, Mr. Freeman has given voice to what has long been the unspoken policy of the ACLU: to push all religious expression safely inside the walls of church buildings. "Outside of official worship services, Christian," the ACLU is saying, "you are very welcome to keep your mouth shut."

Here's my question for Mr. Freeman: Where in the Constitution does it state that free speech is the right of all Americans excepting the religious, who must abide by special free speech zones in their churches and synagogues? What Founder advocated for this peculiar notion?

While the ACLU's position on this issue is absolutely wrong, at least their candor here is refreshing.

The attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union must be exhausted. It's not easy to contort one's reasoning in such a way that defends the Nazi's right to march while simultaneously supporting so-called hate crimes legislation. Perhaps a little consistency would be less hazardous to their mental health?

In recent weeks, the ACLU has come out in strong support of the American National Socialist Workers Party of Roanoke, VA -- a neo-Nazi group -- and their plan to march through a predominantly African-American neighborhood in Cincinnati tomorrow. This is par for their course: the ACLU pushed for -- and won -- the landmark Supreme Court case in favor of Ku Klux Klan expression, Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969).

At the same time, the ACLU has come out in favor of new hate crimes legislation sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR). The bill -- H.R. 1592 -- would allow federal law enforcement officers to more easily investigate and prosecute so-called hate crimes.

But what crime isn't motivated by some form of hate, or at least callous indifference towards the rights, property, or life of another? Can we not just prosecute the criminal activity -- as we always have -- without making the same criminal act against given classes of people more heinous than against other classes of people?

Not according to the ACLU, whose m.o. has long been that some people are more equal than others.

In effect, the ACLU's logic concerning hate speech is this: crude, hateful speech that advocates violence and crime should be protected, but politically-incorrect, hateful thoughts or speech directly related to an actual violent crime against certain classes of people should be prosecuted, over and above the crime itself.

Got that?

A white paper submitted by the Alliance Defense Fund explains how dangerous Sen. Kennedy's hate crime bill is:

H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, and provides greater protection to some victims than others simply because of a status, whether chosen or inherent. The bill has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech as proposed, and creates additional risks for the future.

Make no mistake, that potential is real.

In 2005, Canada amended a very similar hate crimes law to protect homosexuals from "intolerance." During the two years preceding the passage of C-250, a number of lawsuits were filed against traditional Christians and Jews, with the Canadian courts generally sided against those traditionalists who spoke against the gay lifestyle and agenda. And since C-250 passed, the investigation and prosecution of Christians -- like this one -- has increased. "Hate speech" has become a "hate crime" in and of itself, even when not accompanied by criminal activity, violent or otherwise.

H.R. 1592 is bad law for a number of reasons. The tortured logic of the ACLU means that it could become even worse, proving once again that the ACLU is more interested in protecting the speech of Skinheads and Nazis than they are of devout Christians.

Moves are afoot among liberals to revive the defunct "Fairness Doctrine." That was a regulation issued by the Federal Communications Commission which required broadcast licensees to present "both sides" of controversial issues, and present them in what the FCC deemed to be an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC, and aspects of it have been questioned by the courts. It should be left to rest in peace.

The Fairness Doctrine took root in what sounds, at least, like a benevolent principle: that in a democracy, the electorate should be able to hear all sides of an issue. The Doctrine got a boost -- indeed it hit its high water mark -- in a 1969 Supreme Court case called Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, in which the Court upheld it against a First Amendment challenge. The Court understood that a regulation like the Fairness Doctrine would be constitutionally problematic if applied to newspapers, but held that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the scarcity of public broadcast spectrums.

In the 1980's, however, the FCC itself came to doubt both the need for and the constitutional viability of the Doctrine, and abolished in it 1987. Two attempts to reinstate it as a federal statutory requirement were vetoed, one by President Reagan and the last by President George H. W. Bush.

The FCC's decision to end the Doctrine was correct, both on constitutional and practical grounds. If the First Amendment means anything, surely it means that the government cannot set itself up as the arbiter of what counts as a "controversial issue," much less of when a private broadcaster is presenting that issue in an "honest, equal and balanced" manner. As First Amendment guardian Nat Hentoff has put it, "Imagine if Tom Paine had had to give equal time to the royal governor's opposing views."

As a practical matter, Red Lion's "scarcity" rationale has vanished. Scarcity of broadband width may have been a problem 38 years ago, but since the advent of the internet age, 38 years might as well be 38,000 years. In 1969, the average television received perhaps four or five channels, and no one even dreamed of sitting at his personal computer and being able to access dozens if not hundreds of websites arguing pro and con on every conceivable issue. If there were ever a scarcity-based rationale for the Fairness Doctrine, it has long since disappeared into cyberspace.

Mr. Hentoff put his finger on the real reason those on the Left want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine: "They bridle at the high ratings of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and other conservative broadcasters who currently have more public favor than the comparatively fewer liberal commentators." Unable to make a go of it with their own talk radio formats -- formats like the recently bankrupt Air America outlet in New York City, which apparently couldn't even attract a decent audience in the biggest media market in the country -- liberals now want to dragoon conservative broadcasters to provide a cost-free soapbox for them. Wouldn't it be better for liberals to obtain an audience, not by having the government coerce their opponents into providing it for them, but by the old-fashioned method: Earn it.

Twenty years ago, the FCC understood that there's something better than the Fairness Doctrine. Let's call it the Freedom Doctrine. The Freedom Doctrine was good enough for Tom Payne, and it's good enough for us.