Free Speech at the Capitol

I for one was troubled by the whole idea that you needed a permit to protest your government on public property.  I believe that this is unconstitutional, nowhere does it say that you need permits to peacefully assemble.  When the tea party rolled into town on Monday I thought that they of all groups would not get a permit.  No, I was totally wrong.  For all of complaining about government excesses and wanting to restore the constitution they are really all about law and order.  The first question I always ask is would they be ok with the rule if a guy they don't like did it.  Amazingly that becomes a different story.  But, some are consistent and as a person told me all of the protestors breaking the law should be in jail.  This person was all about maintaining civil society.  They would probably do well in a dictatorship.  The fact is that protest and the ability to protest is a key component to the country's founding as well as nearly any change that has taken place since.  There is no question that opponents of health care reform succeeded in watering down what was eventually passed.

If you want to look at protests another way compare the reaction of the Walker administration to unarmed protesters with the debate on gun regulation. The right to assembly does not mention permits, regulation, control,...  Whereas, the second amendment mentions a well regulated militia as being essential to defense as being the reason why gun possession shall not be infringed.  Does that mean that everyone needs to be in a militia that is regulated?  Then there is the argument that we no longer need militias since we have a large standing army.  This is where the above people who got a permit say that we need weapons to fight the government with.

I believe that both amendments shouldn't be curtailed but unfortunately that is not what is happening and only a minority seem to care about the first amendment.

Free speech and Boycotts

Chick Fil A has been in the news a lot in the last couple of weeks.  As we all know the issue stems from the CEO talking about his personal beliefs in a nationally run interview and the angry fallout directed towards his company.  What I find astonishing is how conservatives have twisted free speech.  What they are saying is that this is a free speech issue and that you should be able to say whatever you want without a fear of reprisal.  Excuse me but aren't you the same group of people who ruined the Dixie Chicks for something they said in a concert by calling for a boycott?  No, you can say whatever you want recognizing that the consumer is ultimately free to chose whether they continue to buy your products.  I have no problems with the boycott.  If Mr. Cathy had been running issue ads through as a shielded donor through a super pac (allowed under citizens united) no one would have ever known and he wouldn't be worried about his business suffering.  As I have said before this is what is wrong with citizens united, you have all of this money being spent whose source is unknown.  Consumers don't have an opportunity to make informed purchasing decisions.  At least with Chick Fil A we can say I'm not going to shop there because their ownership is bigoted and spends money to help spread that cause.  Given the deep divisions in the country it would be smart for business owners worried about their market share to not contribute to any cause or candidate.  We know that this won't happen because there is less choice in the market place so as an owner you can get away with it and not suffer.