C-Poll

The latest C-Poll is closed. You can read all about it here!

August 8, 2004

The state of the First

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything...


This surreal exchange is what comes to mind when I ponder the current state of our First Amendment freedoms. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance 'reform' law has done violent damage to our freedom of speech (particularly in the sixty days prior to election day), but somehow the Supreme sees no constitutional evil there. Imagine Supreme Court Justice Humpty Dumpty trying to explain the amendment:

'When I say abridging the freedom of speech, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less...'

Paul Jacobs of U.S. Term Limits may be a little bit over the top when he calls this "our first election without the First Amendment", but one can easily understand the frustration that gave rise to such hyperbole.

1 comment:

Tim said...

[Reader 'chocolate' writes:]

Same topic, different angle. I heard a comment of Michael Savage's about our right to free speech being chipped away at. He was speaking about the effort of the democrats to silence the message of the Swift Vets against Kerry. Media outlets that choose to carry the ad the group produced are being threatened with lawsuits. He compared it to repressive communist regimes using tactics like that to keep people from speaking out against the state. But, that would never happen here, right?