Let's hear it for the First Amendment

[unixronin]

Well, unless you're on the Obama campaign, that is.  NewsMax reports that the Obama campaign has been sending "intimidating cease-and-desist letters" to radio and TV stations that air anti-Obama ads, including NRA ads, threatening them with loss of their FCC licenses, and is now urging Obama supporters to write letter campaigns to their local stations demanding that they not run the NRA's ads documenting his long-standing anti-gun record.

This is the second time the Obama campaign has been caught trying to suppress an opposing ad.  Remember when the PSA aired pointing out Obama's connection to a former Weather Underground leader, and Obama's campaign said the people running the independent nonprofit that put the ad together should go to jail for it?  Saying that criticism — even factual criticism — of even a Presidential candidate should be a crime punishable by jail is pretty scary, and not something I want to see in any Presidential candidate.  That's only about one long step away from declaring any criticism of the administration, justified or not, to be sedition.

It's been said that the Second Amendment is the most important in the Bill of Rights because it protects the First.  It looks like the Obama camp dislikes both, and is quite willing to attack the First Amendment to try to prevent the NRA from exposing Obama's dislike of the Second to voters, so that Obama can continue to stand up and say "I'm not anti-gun.  Really.  Would I lie to you?"

(And before any Obama apologists stand up and start accusing bias, yes, I already know the writing of the NewsMax article is hardly what could be called neutral.  I'm guessing it's an NRA-PVF press release published as-is.)

Comments

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

And, since when does the Ist Amendment have anything whatsoever to do with private parties challenging each other on what might or might not be appropriate speech?

Neither party you mentioned is a government. One of the two parties might want to be, but, as of now, they are both private entities, and any laws concerning free speech take second place to laws concerning slander and libel. (Of which I have no opinion, in this specific case.)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That's true. But one of these "private parties" wants to become President. Do you want a President who thinks the right of free speech doesn't extend to anything critical of him?

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

The right of free speech is always limited by law. There are and should be things that are illegal to say; the classic example being a prank shout of "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

False advertising and libel are and should be illegal, as well.

It seems to me that the Obama campaign's counsel was not trying to ban anything critical of Obama, per se. The letter I just read on the ABC website cited an FCC regulation against false advertising, a regulation that has been in place since 1961.

There are plenty of negative ads airing that are critical of Obama. I don't see any evidence that Obama is trying to restrict free speech.

I do, however, see the NRA lying, and continuing to lie in what it released to the Newsmax column. The Newsmax column states that the Obama campaign's attorney said ""This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising.""

I have carefully checked the letter Bauer sent, as reprinted by ABC. I have scanned it and cannot find that quote anywhere in the letter.

In fact, the letter, which Newsmax describes as a "cease and desist letter", categorically does not contain the word "cease" at all.

I have just lost a little respect for the NRA over this lie.

[mazianni.livejournal.com]

This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."

That's about the third paragraph from the bottom of the letter. Actually, the letter says advertisement, not advertising.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I was wrong. I missed it, and my computer did too.

I had run a search for the phrase "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising", and didn't find it (and wouldn't have, because, as you point out, the word used was advertisement, not advertising).

But then a ran a search for the word "cease" and didn't find that either. I think the quality of the photocopy or scan is not good enough; for some reason Adobe couldn't read the word "cease". I didn't remember seeing it, so I thought the quote was invented.

Thank you for pointing to the third paragraph from the end.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The Newsmax column states that the Obama campaign's attorney said ""This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising.""

I have carefully checked the letter Bauer sent, as reprinted by ABC. I have scanned it and cannot find that quote anywhere in the letter.

That's funny, because I found it....

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

What is the NRA lying about?

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

But theatergoers are not muzzled to prevent them from falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. They just can't rely on a First Amendment defense if they should do so and are prosecuted for inciting a panic.

For eight years I've heard people complaining about what a police state Bush is trying to create. But I've never once seen evidence of him recruiting prosecutors to pursue action against those making "false" claims against him. In this case, Obama is trying to misrepresent his record, and the media is mostly letting him get away with it. He claims to support the Second Amendment, but has NEVER voted for gun rights, and has even refused to sign on to petitions in favor of gun rights. Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's actions have been hostile to gun owners, and on top of that, he's threatening the FCC licenses of media stations that air spots from those attempting to portray those actions.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

It's worth noting that there are some very well respected Supreme Court justices who would claim the First Amendment does protect the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Justice Hugo Black, for instance, was an unabashed advocate of total freedom of speech at the federal level, believing the Constitution granted Congress no ability to pass a law restricting it, which gave the Executive no ability to restrict, which gave the Judiciary no right to declare those restrictions legal.