VOLuntarilyConservative

Blue Collar Muse has the story out of Maricopa County, one in a disturbing trend of recent Republican episodes that tend to fly in the face of liberty and freedom. This one involves blogging and First Amendment rights, which makes it a bit more troubling even than the NRSC's taking sides against conservative Marco Rubio in Florida or the NY-23 dust-up going on now involving Doug Hoffman. Those were deals involving political ideology (specifically conservatism). This Arizona mess seems more about pure free speech and the threat of going after professional licenses and reputations if someone dares defy members of the GOP in Maricopa County.

Labels: First Amendment

Read this story.

Now re-read it, but replace Palin's name with Obama's.

So you think that if I hung a stuffed Barack Obama from the tree in my front yard that I would even be allowed time to remove the offending implement? Or would the enlightened liberal thought police have already torched my house before I got home?

Labels: 2008 General Election, First Amendment

You've just hosted the Democratic National Convention? So what are you going to do next? Nope, not a trip to DisneyWorld. How about a trip to federal district court, where you will face a suit for millions of dollars for unquestionably violating the civil rights of a member of the mainstream media?!

I'm not one to defend the media on most cases, which may seem a bit odd since that used to be my gig. However, this video borders on the absurd.



All of that for taking pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic money men and elected officials?

I hope St. Paul treats media better, otherwise my laptop might ought to stay home and I'll just write a pictureless book on dead wood.

RedState has a bunch more, as does Instapundit (here and here).

Labels: 2008 Democratic National Convention, First Amendment, Media

I don't have much to say about this - except that I was wrong when I said that California juries had no concept of non-governmental responsibility.

One has to wonder if the number of hotels offering adult pornography will dissipate after this suit.

Labels: First Amendment, Law, Pornography

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down several opinions yesterday, and generally one can see a trend towards a Right-leaning Court beginning to form. Two of the more remarkable aspects of yesterday's rulings were victories for free speech in striking down part of McCain-Feingold and the barring of taxpayer standing as a way of attacking faith-based organizations that apply for federal funding under President Bush's Faith-based Initiative.

How Appealing has a run down of the four rulings from Monday, including links to the opinions issued by the Court.

The AP's Mark Sherman has a good summation, including a quote from Democrat John Edwards that stenches of hyperbole.

Labels: First Amendment, Free Speech, SCOTUS

Instapundit has the following observation regarding downloads on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN):

Indeed. My Libel in the Blogosphere paper has moved up over 160 places -- from 1069 to 902 -- in the SSRN rankings since the Katherine Coble / JL Kirk / King & Ballow affair broke out.

That's interesting, indeed. I suppose it goes to show that some people - probably some of the larger law firms - don't want to get caught up in the same problem that King & Ballow did.

I suppose that's a good thing - that learning and understanding are coming out of this whole ordeal. I guess if no one gets damaged (and I'm thinking of Kat Coble here, not JL Kirk & Associates), then we have the spread of knowledge as a gained consequence of this episode.

Or am I being too optimistic for a Monday?

Labels: Blogging, First Amendment

Tennessee Journalist has the story of the Center for Bioethical Reform's Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) and its recent visit to The University of Tennessee.

It's an interesting article, but what really caught my interest were the comments of the journalism majors at the conclusion of the article. One has to see the irony in future journalists - whose very occupation is dependent upon the First Amendment - believing that someone they disagree with on an issue shouldn't have the right to freely assemble, freely speak about their views and beliefs, and freely express those beliefs through the staffing of an exhibit.

Yeah, those girls are going to fit right in with the anti-First Amendment establishment. Maybe they could get a job at King & Ballow or JL Kirk & Associates.

Labels: Abortion, First Amendment

Everyone is watching Kat Coble's drama involving the employment firm (and potential shakedown artists) JL Kirk & Associates, who apparently retained the law firm of King & Ballow in an effort to get Kat to take down a post of hers about a professional encounter with JL Kirk. First, Kat posted this comment. Then she received the certified letter. Then Kat posted the letter. Pay attention to the comments, because they are coming fast and furious, which tends to happen when Instapundit, Bill Hobbs, Professor Bainbridge, Captain's Quarters, and nearly every other blog takes notice.

While I love Hobbs' treatment of the story, the best post may be from Bob Krumm, who made sure that JL Kirk & Associates and King & Ballow will always be linked with this story via Internet searches with the words "scam," "fraud," "rip-off," and "con."

In any case, this is a real blunder by King & Ballow. Yes, the practice of issuing demand letters as a way of getting what a client wants without having to resort to actual litigation is widely used. However, you can't treat every case the same. You need to know when something is going to be attractive to media - local, state, or (in this case) global. This goes for civil suits (as the one being threatened against Kat), criminal suits, and even juvenile cases (because the media can request access on certain hearings there, too). If this case is going to make the media take notice (taking into account that mainstream sources oftentimes are agitated to action by bloggers), then you have to be perfect in your actions.

King & Ballow were not perfect here. Not by a long shot. They ignored the relevant federal caselaw regarding libel, opinions as free speech, truth as an absolute defense, and 1st Amendment litigation in general. And surely they knew (or should have known) that Kat would take this public. Anyone familiar with Kat's writings (and you have to assume that the associate who wrote this letter at King & Ballow would be so familiar, having referred to specific posts of the blog) knows that she doesn't take crap from anyone. They should have known that she would expand this conflict, and the public relations blowback against JL Kirk and King & Ballow would be more than significant.

However, the real culprit here is JL Kirk & Associates. They should have let sleeping dogs lie. I oftentimes read Kat's blog, but I didn't recall the particular post about her and her husband's experiences with the agency. The limited effects of her post would have gone away. Not now, though. We'll all remember this. They made the primary blunder in politics - never expand a conflict that you can't control. And looking at the blogosphere (83 blog hits on Technorati as of 7:34 A.M.), this story is about to spin out of control into the mainstream media.

Will JL Kirk do the smart thing and have King & Ballow draft up a retraction of their demand letter? Will they apologize to Kat? That would probably be the best thing to do, as it could minimize the damage. However, egos being what they are, that probably won't happen. Of course, the worst thing to do would be to file suit. I don't know how deep JL Kirk's pockets are, but I dare say that the economic ramifications of such a maneuver could sink their entire ship.

An aside: it just occurred to me that Senator Jamie Woodson's proposed bill from earlier in the year might have altered Kat's free speech rights in this case. I guess that just goes to show how bad of a bill that would have been. (Woodson pulled the bill after certain bloggers made a big deal about it, blaming its language on a third year law student.)

UPDATE: Welcome all Instapundit and Fark readers (who are traversing from Bob Krumm's site)! Feel free to look around while you're here.

Bill Hobbs, Professor Reynolds, Volunteer Voters, and Jay Bush have some updates. As many are saying, it is certainly in JL Kirk's best interests to quash this controversy and move on. A blogospheric legal defense fund is certainly a possibility to assist Kat Coble, and with the Media Bloggers Association getting involved, this would not be a case of David versus Goliath in the courtroom in terms of finances.

As SayUncle so poignantly put it: "In other news, don’t send bloggers stuff that makes you look like an asshat. They tend to blog about it."

Like I said (but Uncle said more colorfully), let sleeping dogs lie...

Labels: Blogging, First Amendment

Liberals on talk radio and television would have you believe that there is no war on religion here in the United States. In some circles, they may be right, but there is open hostility to organized religion - Christian or not - in most parts of this country. This happens even in what have been "red states" over the past decade, such as Florida.

Here are two headlines that crossed my path this morning:

Florida Men Arrested for Handing Out Bibles

Miami-Dade County Officials: Buy 2.5 acres, or Cancel Bible Study

Thank goodness for organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund, which is funding both of the cases above (in defense of the Gideons in the first case and for the plaintiff Worldwide Agape Ministries in the second case). If ADF wasn't doing its job, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution wouldn't be recognizable in many parts of the country.

Labels: First Amendment, Freedom of Religion

It seems that the University of Illinois doesn't see the need to allow constitutionally protected speech by its students. Nor does it seem that the school's administration can tell the difference between a joke and a threat. Unfortunately, such scenes at public universities across the country routinely show that our best and brightest are not running our institutions of higher learning.

Lucky for those of us who enjoy freedom and celebrate its inclusion in the United States Constitution, there are groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group I have long supported. They have come to the aid of the student targeted by the politically correct University of Illinois administration. One thing that I have learned in my dealings with FIRE over the years - FIRE rarely loses.

Read about the incident from FIRE's perspective.

Labels: Colleges, FIRE, First Amendment

As reported here early Friday, the NFL is applying a double-standard regarding who can and who can't have gatherings for the Super Bowl, which is troublesome in itself because it is carried on network TV, for which the NFL is compensated at a ridiculous rate. The Family Research Counsel published a release late Friday that contained the following:

***

Assistant Counsel Rachel Margolies writes, "[The NFL] is consistent in refusing the use of our game broadcasts in connections with events that promote a message, no matter the content." This is an interesting contradiction, since the League allows businesses such as sports bars to broadcast the game to crowds in an environment that encourages alcohol consumption.

Obviously, the NFL is more comfortable promoting substance abuse and half-time nudity than it is endorsing positive role models like Dungy and Smith. Rather than provide a safe, healthy environment for families to gather and watch the Super Bowl, the NFL is suggesting that they abandon the church for the nearest bar. Attorneys at the NFL should concentrate less on intimidating churches and more on preventing another "wardrobe malfunction."

***

Ouch.

Labels: Equal Protection, First Amendment, Football

Honestly, I am stunned at this story out of Indianapolis where the NFL legal eagles stiff-armed a group of degenerates who really had it coming - the fine people at Fall Creek Baptist Church.

Read the story here.

The NFL is exhibiting a double-standard here equal to the proportions of some of the linemen who will play in Sunday's game. I wish that the church would have called their bluff and countersued on Free Exercise and equal protection grounds.

In any case, if you are having a party on Sunday (as I am) make sure to follow the NFL guidelines for such (particularly if you are a Christian, have ever known a Christian, or think that someone named "Christian" may attend):

- No admission fees. (No problem here for me.)

- Only one television, 55-inches or smaller. (Sorry, NFL, but I didn't measure the screen. Perhaps you can send an official NFL chain crew to make the ruling if the TV at the party is too big.)

- No use of the words "Super Bowl" in promotional materials. (OK, I might be guilty of this one. Of course, I am using the OFFICIAL NFL LICENSED materials, which I assume incorporates a fair use defense. Think the NFL Party Nazis will let me slide?)

- No exhibition of the game in connection with events "that promote a message." (Well, the message surrounding our party was "We can't believe that Da Bears made it back to the Super Bowl in my lifetime." I think we might change it to "The NFL Office of the General Counsel need to be tarred and feathered as halftime entertainment instead of Prince.")

***

It's amazing to me that the NFL - who tends to handle PR better than its baseball and basketball counterparts in deflecting criticism for the thugs that star in their sports - would choose to strike at a church that was trying to promote the positive qualities of Coach Dungy and Coach Smith. The only explanation I have is that the lawyers for the NFL had the common sense beat out of them during what I expect were probably expensive Ivy League educations.

Labels: Equal Protection, First Amendment, Football

Yesterday, the story was all about the censorship bill that was put forth by a Democratic House member and was eventually traced back to Senator Jamie Woodson.

Terry Frank has Jamie's explanation of what occurred.

My question to my readers is this: are you satisfied with Jamie's answer?

Labels: First Amendment, General Assembly

Admittedly, several of us bloggers knew about the proposed bill in the Tennessee House to start infringing on free speech by adding the presumption of malice to any controversial statement that someone didn't like on the Internet (including, of course, blogs).

Bill Hobbs, Professor Reynolds, ACK (not once, not twice, but thrice), Michael Silence, and others have opined on the foolish bill.

I did some digging yesterday as well, but thought I was in error with my research. How did this all keep coming back to Senator Jamie Woodson? Surely that couldn't be correct, so I had better not put that out on VOLCon because it surely couldn't be true...

Well, I guess it's amazing how quickly I forgot the lessons of the past few days. Let's face it, my fellow conservatives - we've got a bigger problem with the Republicans than we ever thought. Here in Knox County, the past few weeks have reinforced something that I have been formulating for a while - the Democrats may be inept, disorganized, and unfit for office, but the Republicans are nothing more than feudal lords only out for their own personal power and wealth, forsaking all concepts of what it means to be a "public servant," ignoring ethical standards, and willing to sell this nation down the road to Armageddon if it means a few extra dollars lining their pockets and few extra favors in the bank for a rainy day.

So, of course, it could be Jamie Woodson behind the attempts to chill blogger speech. As Jay Bush has pointed out in the comments over at Hobbs, it makes perfect sense. Heck, I was told by staffers on the Ed Bryant campaign last year that I was to either make nice with Woodson after I repeatedly blasted her for supporting Bredesen's Pre-K boondoggle or disassociate from the campaign. I guess you could say that Jamie has not had the best of experiences with blogs.

Now I would count Jamie as a friend in the General Assembly. She is personable, nice, and very intelligent. She has called me on several issues and sometimes just to check in. I do respect that.

However, because of a few instances, she's slowly turning into a Big Orange version of Mitt Romney - the nicest person you will ever meet with claims at conservatism and upholding the rule of law, but if you laid out their record besides a known liberal, it would be hard to tell the difference in certain key areas.

Being Jamie's friend, I hope this is all one big misunderstanding. With shaken faith in Knox County Republicans as of late, I'm not too optimistic that my hopes will be realized.

Labels: First Amendment, General Assembly