Blaska blows it on free speech

"Libel: An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)."

Remember that word and its definition, as it will prove to be important in the following debate.

Dave Blaska, Isthmus' token blogger and reliably far-right guy, today takes on what he (and many other far right columnists) perceives to be an attack on free speech. He's mad about several things:

• On the Friday before the Tuesday, November 4, general election, at the behest of the Democrat(ic) Party, a circuit court judge in Jackson County yanked a political advertisement off the airwaves without holding a hearing because he didn't like the ad.
  
  
• Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board (the merged Ethics and Elections Boards) is about to manufacture rules governing third-party "issue ads," those being defined as advertisements not placed by the candidates themselves but by those who are interested in the results — aka: citizens.
  
  
• The Wisconsin Judicial Commission has taken it upon itself to determine whether it agrees with an advertisement aired by successful State Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman.
  
  
• A Democrat(ic) Congress appears poised to re-instate the Orwellian-named "Fairness Doctrine" in order to shut down conservative talk radio.

Ignoring his continued misuse of the title of the political party with which he most disagrees, there are several points of contention within this neat bullet list.

What Blaska seems to be most upset about is the push to ban third-party issue ads during campaigns, and the push to force these third-parties to publish their lists of contributors. He muddies the issue by throwing in the panicky accusations about an alleged move to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, even though no legislation has been introduced to that effect (even in the current, Democratically dominated Congress), and president-elect Barack Obama has stated that he does not support it. What Obama did say he supports, however, is more important:

In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that...Obama "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Making sure one giant corporation doesn't own the majority of media outlets in a particular region seems more than reasonable to me, and would serve to make sure that multiple voices were able to find airspace without government intervention, simply by helping to insure diversity and accessibility. Net neutrality is something I'm also a big proponent of, and a subject well worth reading up on if you haven't already.

The Fairness Doctrine is a trickier beast, though, because it could easily be used for good or bad ends. It's difficult to debate the issue rationally, however, when both far sides tend to get a little hysterical over it. Folks like Blaska like to use it as a bogeyman to claim the squashing of their free speech rights, when all they really want is for conservative talk radio hacks to be able to go on spewing unsubstantiated claims and attacks (if this isn't true, then why do they only get up in arms when their ideological kin are singled out, and not folks on the other side?). Folks on the flip side may be inclined to let the government regulate what stations can and cannot air, which is also nonsense.

There is middle ground here.

First, we all need to come to terms with things like slander and libel, which are punishable offenses and not protected by the First Amendment. Mike Gableman's ad that heavily insinuated that Louis Butler had let a violent criminal out of jail who then went on to offend again is one such example. The ad was libelous. That's why the Wisconsin Judicial Commission has levied charges, and that's why Gableman has already been rebuked by several other organizations for the ad.

Banning such ads, or pulling them from the air, is not an attack on the free speech rights of anyone. It is done to uphold the law, and to keep it from being made a mockery of by those who seek to spread disinformation and lies. See "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" for a prime example.

Third party "issue ads" are notorious for this, and both the more liberal and conservative sides are guilty. Any regulation of these, as the Government Accountability Board is seeking to impose, should be limited to insuring that they are factually accurate, and don't make disparaging and, most importantly, unsubstantiated claims about a person's character. That's it.

(As for making public the list of donors to such ads and campaigns - I admit to being torn. One could make the argument that as voting is left anonymous so no one feels pressured to cast their ballot one way or another, one should be able to donate money to a cause/campaign without fear of retribution.)

Shouldn't we be arguing policies and plans, anyway? A candidate holds a position that you find abhorrent? Say so. A candidate voted for something you think was wrong? Say so! Explain why. Go ahead, just leave the vague, more-often-than-not baseless accusations out of it.

Free speech is one of most important rights we have as citizens. It should be guarded and exercised with vigor and persistence. But to claim that what is really nothing more than slander, libel, and other defamation, is and should be protected as "free speech" is to throw mud at the very concept.

Certainly we need to make sure that such regulations don't go too far in the other direction, but we can't do without them, either. Money should not equal unfettered access to public airwaves in order to make whatever claims you want about a given person or group. That would do the opposite of fostering a free and open democracy. Hey Dave, is that what you want?

Esta tierra es tuya

It is strange to me that the Pledge of Allegiance can stir up so much controversy. Yet time and time again, both nationally and in my own personal life, it does just that, causing passions to run high on both sides of the debate.

There have been arguments about whether or not the recitation of said pledge should be compulsory for public school children (in 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that it cannot, as that would be a violation of the First Amendment), whether the late addition of "under God" is constitutional (the issue has so far been dodged by the Supreme Court), and now, most recently, whether or not the pledge must be recited in English only.

Edgerton High School, in Edgerton, Wisconsin, has been facing that last issue head-on.

For many years now, Edgerton High School in Wisconsin has allowed students in its Spanish class to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish over the Intercom one day of the school year. It also invites foreign exchange students (the school now has three) to say it in their own language.

This year, when Spanish students recited the Pledge on March 11, it caused a ruckus.

Parents complained. They demanded that the Spanish teacher, the principal, and the superintendent be fired. And they intend to press the issue at the school board meeting on April 28.

The superintendent, Dr. Norman Fjelstad, has even been physically threatened.

I am, quite honestly, appalled by the reaction of parents and members of the community to this. First and foremost, the pledge is something people can choose to say or not, and if they do, what does it matter what language it's said in? We are a free country, made up of people from all walks of life and hundreds of different ethnic and national backgrounds. English, by dint of chance, has become the most dominant language in the country, but we've kept it from being designated the "official" language for good reason.

What makes us American is not so much what language we speak but what ideals we hold dear. One of those ideals is that the diversity of humanity is a strength, not a weakness.

Sadly, there are those who believe that somehow, just by saying the Pledge in a different language, it dishonors the men and women who've fought to make this country what it is. Frankly, I think it honors them. After all, haven't we been struggling to become and continue to be a free and inclusive society?

Too, shouldn't we be encouraging our children (and adults) to branch out and learn other languages? Bilingual education is especially important in our increasingly global community. Having even a basic understanding of another language (and, by proxy, another culture) does wonders in helping to bridge cultural gaps, make us savvier in the business world, and generally increase our ability to get along with different people from different places. We should be encouraging exercises like those at Edgerton High School, not calling for the teachers' heads on pikes.

That people are threatening superintendent Norm Fjelstad over this is completely unacceptable. While I may firmly disagree with their opinions, it is of course their right to express them. But extending that to verbal and physical threats is inexcusably wrong. It illustrates nothing but ignorance on the part of the perpetrators.

I applaud Fjelstad for standing up against the threats and defending the decision.

“I’ve heard their frustration,” says Superintendent Fjelstad. “I understand what they’re saying. They feel it dishonors our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. My response is this: I know there are 400 Hispanic speaking soldiers that won’t disagree with them. They can’t disagree because they gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, there are 110,000 Spanish-speaking Hispanics serving in the military that I believe would agree with me that speaking Spanish does not dishonor the military.”

Fjelstad also points out that George W. Bush had the National Anthem sung in Spanish at his inaugural in 2001.

Fjelstad adds a personal point. “I have a Norwegian heritage,” he says. “My father could not speak English until the third grade, and he was patriotic, and he recited the Pledge in Norwegian.”

Fjelstand also notes that “our Wisconsin Constitution was written in three languages: English, German, and Norwegian. The reason it was written in three languages is because it’s important that people understand the words.”

On top of that, Fjelstad invokes the First Amendment to the Constitution. “Government should never mandate that the Pledge or the National Anthem be said in one language,” he says.

Fjelstad’s conclusion: “I see nothing wrong with what we’ve been doing.”

But he’s not sure the school board will see it that way.

“The school board has the right to overturn my decision,” he says. “If they do, I won’t be insubordinate. I will comply. I won’t be fired. But I’ll be on record as saying I disagree with that decision, and that I believe people are suppressing what is a freedom of our country.”

I wish I'd had this guy as my superintendent back in high school. When I made the decision not to recite the Pledge every morning as classes started, I took a lot of flak. This even though I conceded to standing up during it as a sign of respect to those around me. Still, because I wouldn't actually say it, I was perceived as being unpatriotic. Nothing could be further from the truth, and my decision was not reached lightly. I chose not to recite the Pledge because of the "under God" addition, and because I'm not comfortable pledging my troth to a flag. The people, the ideals, the rights and goals of my country, however, I hold dear.

I can only hope that the school board doesn't overturn the decision. We've had too much in the way of knee-jerk, poorly thought out positions winning the day. Edgerton may just be one small town on the map, but the issues being faced there are universally important.

Dumbing down the discourse

The UW-Madison and its College Republicans played host to Fox News pundit and conservative blogger Michelle Malkin this past Friday. Naturally, there was a lot of hubbub leading up to the event. Some folks thought it was insane to even bring her here to speak, expressing shock that anyone of a more liberal persuasion would attend. The talk itself then involved several shouted obscenities from certain members of the crowd (a fact little commented on in the press, as far as I can tell), both during her talk and throughout the Q&A that followed.

This should be unacceptable for all parts of the political spectrum.

I understand, very well, the frustration of those with more left-leaning feelings. It certainly seems like factions of the far-right have hijacked the discourse and the law in this country, and many of them certainly don't shy away from ad hominem attacks and mudslinging. This makes it especially infuriating when they then, when faced with similar tactics, see fit to cry foul as though they themselves are without sin.

In the end, though, someone has to take the high road. Simply because your opponent stoops to a certain level doesn't mean that you should, too. This goes for the left, right and center. Interrupting someone, whether it be during an organized event or regular conversation, is rude and petty. It will do little to advance your point, and plenty to turn others off from hearing you out when it's your turn to speak.

I disagree with most of the positions Malkin takes, and as much as said positions tend to offend my sensibilities and occasionally fill me with rage--apply this to most conservative pundits, really--I would be extremely disappointed with myself if I ever let that anger bubble over into trying to silence their voices. Doubly so if that involved shouting "fuck you!" and "racist!" at someone during a rally or speech (with the except of a Neo-Nazi group or something).

I think it's safe to say that the majority of people--right, left and everything in between--want a better life for themselves and their children/families. We want to feel relatively safe, and to be free to pursue our own goals. We want to be heard. If there is to be any real progress, we need to elevate the level of discourse: do our best to restrain ourselves when we feel the (natural, but not good) urge to sling mud in order to discredit our opponents. Try to see where the other guy might be coming from. This doesn't mean you have to agree with them--Lord knows a little partisanship can be a good thing from time to time. But it should mean that we never stoop so far as to try to restrict someone's free speech, or to crassly interrupt them when they are speaking.

You know the old saying: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Freedom to be an idiot

I'm a little behind the times (so what's new) because I only just read about this today (h/t CP):

James Buss, 46, was arrested last week for the Nov. 16 post he made on www.bootsandsabers.com, a popular conservative blog that covers Wisconsin politics.

Buss wrote their salaries made him sick because teachers are lazy and work only five hours a day. He praised Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who killed 12 students and a teacher before committing suicide in the April 1999 attack at Columbine High School.

It's an idiotic, trolling comment to make--I don't think anyone with half a brain would argue with that. But arresting the guy and then continuing to hold him even after finding nothing incriminating in his house or his past? That's just as ridiculous. The boys at B&S put it pretty well, actually:

I realize that in a post-Columbine world that everyone is hypersensitive about any mention of Columbine or school shootings. But this comment was clearly just talk. When I gave the detective the IP address, I assumed that they would find him, chew him out a bit for being an idiot, and leave it alone. The fact that the West Bend Police decided to actually arrest him in the absence of any additional evidence of this guy being a threat is out of line.

I encourage the District Attorney’s office to promptly no bill this matter. Yes, we need to be concerned with statements like this and it was appropriate for the police to look into it. But once they found out that he was no threat and once the comment had been removed, thus eliminating the likelihood that the comment would encourage anyone else to commit violence, they should have dropped it.

Indeed. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Or will there even be a line at all?