The New Republic

It's sadly common to see "freedom of speech" interpreted to mean "my right to say whatever I like without fear of criticism" rather than the more important "citizens' right to criticize things they don't like, including the free speech of others, without fear of government restraint or reprisal." And, of course, this fits nicely into the right's tendency to view the slightest opposition to their program as The Death of Freedom.

- frippo

January 31, 2011 at 12:19pm

(And anyway, if the protesters are there to protest specifically things like Bradley Smith's views on campaign finance, lack of faith in the electoral system is not "ironic" but the whole point. -- I say this at the ironic risk of painting right-wing views as the death of freedom.)

- frippo

January 31, 2011 at 12:22pm

Bradley Smith is just like the Koch brothers. To them, even a magazine article that is critical of them is beyond the pale.

- liberalref

January 31, 2011 at 12:34pm

“Obviously this argument is ridiculous. To protest a group is not to threaten that group's right to associate. It is to express opposition to the group's ideas. I abhor what the Koch brothers stand for as I don’t believe in unregulated “free” markets. I also don’t like the idea of one group protesting the free speech of another. In this case an argument can be made that demonstrating against a right wing meeting is not the same denying them freedom of speech or assembly, but this isn’t universally true. Unlimited freedom of speech doesn’t work anymore than unregulated free markets work. What would Jonathan Chait say when religious fundamentalists protest at funerals of veterans and soldiers killed in combat or at the funeral of the child murdered in Arizona (as they threatened to do) because from their point of view “we live in a sinful country that endorses homosexuality. It disrupts the mourning process and is a counter to freedom of association and assembly. Besides, what kind of speech does shouting down mourners further?

- arnon

January 31, 2011 at 12:39pm

This brings to mind the epic quote from that Dixie Chicks movie preview when some guy says with a straight face "I'm all for free speech just so long as you don't go public with it."

- Jonas

January 31, 2011 at 12:53pm

Didn't you hear? Only corporations have free speech rights.

- Nusholtz

January 31, 2011 at 12:55pm

"Besides, what kind of speech does shouting down mourners further?" Perhaps they think that protesting will change the mourners' minds and convince them to join their anti-homosexuality movement. Anyway, I believe there is an AZ state law that prohibits demonstrations within a certain distance from a funeral, which is presumably constitutional. But the question is whether you want the government making value judgments on speech, since the next speech that may be deemed without purpose may be yours or mine. "I also don’t like the idea of one group protesting the free speech of another." We may not like it, but the issue is whether we have to permit it. I think it's fine, just as groups can organize boycotts of companies that support of various media programs to pressure them to withdraw their ads. People have the right to their speech, and others have the free speech right to criticize them. The latter does nothing to prevent the former from associating and sharing their ideas. This whole thing reminds me of the last presidential campaign when Palin said the media were violating her free speech rights by criticizing her. The right to free speech is not the right to criticism-free speech (never mind freedom of the press).

- dsimon

January 31, 2011 at 1:18pm

Free speech for me, not for thee.

- GSpinks

January 31, 2011 at 1:37pm

Liberals weren't protesting the right of free speech for the Koch brothers, they were contending against the money "speech" rights of said brothers, arnon. There is a difference, even though much established jurisprudence in this country has ruled otherwise and the entire Republican Party isn't aware of - or doesn't care about - such boundary lines.

- liberalref

January 31, 2011 at 1:53pm

“But the question is whether you want the government making value judgments on speech, since the next speech that may be deemed without purpose may be yours or mine.” This is the line right wingers have taken when attacking government involvement in everything from health care to gun control. The real question isn’t whether the government can make decisions about speech, but how much of a voice we would like them to have. As long as non-governmental organizations as well as individuals can have a voice on this issue, there is no reason to deny government officials a right to offer their views. Offering a judgment is not the same as mandating action.

- arnon

January 31, 2011 at 2:00pm

arnon: "This is the line right wingers have taken when attacking government involvement in everything from health care to gun control." There's an argument that speech is different. You need speech to share ideas. The same cannot be said for gun regulations or health care policies. "The real question isn’t whether the government can make decisions about speech, but how much of a voice we would like them to have. As long as non-governmental organizations as well as individuals can have a voice on this issue, there is no reason to deny government officials a right to offer their views." I'm not sure what the argument is here. I don't see instances where individuals or organizations can't offer their opinions, and I don't see anyone saying that government officials can't speak or offer their views. The question is whether "government" should decide "how much of a voice" other people should have. Again, the unpopular voice could be yours or mine next time.

- dsimon

January 31, 2011 at 2:14pm

Although nobody has said this as I recall, I think personally tha the question of demonstrating at funerals is a matter of civilizational decency. The people who do this -- especially on an issue unrelated to the wars in which the soldiers died -- are engaging in ethical destruction at a deep level.

- ironyroad

January 31, 2011 at 2:45pm

"There's an argument that speech is different. You need speech to share ideas. The same cannot be said for gun regulations or health care policies." Of course, simon, but this is an argument that the right uses often. If it were up to them not only money but guns too would become an "expression of free speech." I agree with ironyroad that it's an issue of decency and civilized conduct, but fanatics have no decency and are not really civilized.

- arnon

January 31, 2011 at 2:59pm

Reminds me of when the right-wingers at the Rutherford Institute got all hot and bothered when the Los Angeles Times issued a directive requesting that reporters refrain from using certain derogatory terms in their articles. "Censorship!" As if a privately-owned publication didn't have the right to establish the content of its own product.

- kkseattle

January 31, 2011 at 4:26pm

I would compare these protesters to someone who shouts "Fire!" at the scene of a fire.

- koppgeo

January 31, 2011 at 7:02pm

Comment of the day to Koppgeo ...

- icarusr

January 31, 2011 at 8:33pm

Agreed, great comment.

- khellaf

January 31, 2011 at 8:56pm

arnon: "If it were up to them not only money but guns too would become an 'expression of free speech.'" I don't see the parallel. I can see the argument as to how it's hard to speak without money (to pay for an Internet connection, take out an ad, print a flyer). But it's easy to speak without a gun--or a 30-round clip. The Court, I think, has discussed that while some activities can be found to constitute protected "expressive conduct," it can't be that all conduct is speech because then every action would be protected (hey, my theft was just protected expressive conduct!). Koppego: +1

- dsimon

February 1, 2011 at 1:30am