“You’re too stupid for free speech”

Linn  and Ari Armstrong make some great points about the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC in a recent article in the Grand Junction Free Press:

Regarding this case, the left is perfectly consistent with its Marxist roots. Marx wrote, “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

In simpler terms, you are just too stupid to independently evaluate a film or ad funded by a corporation. You need the benevolent nannies of the left to help you think straight.

… However, trying to save people from their own stupidity only entrenches stupidity. People cannot choose wisely if they lack the capacity to choose badly. In terms of free speech, people must be free to say and believe stupid things, if we wish to preserve the right and ability to say and believe profundities.

Read the whole article.  See also:

Dispelling the Top Five Citizens United Decision Myths – Institute for Justice

When Individuals Form Corporations, They Don’t Lose Their Rights, Ilya Shapiro, Cato-at-Liberty. Great arguments, and links to others.

Value freedom? Watch The Singing Revolution

The documentary’s trailer:

Interview with one of the directors giving background and summary:

[reason 254]

For a couple more videos and background, see Reason.tv’s page on Estonia and the Singing Revolution and the documentary’s website.

Campaign finance laws vs. free speech

Regarding the September 18 Supreme Court decision on EMILY’s List vs. the Federal Election Commission, I wrote in the September 12 Boulder Daily Camera:

Campaign finance laws should be abolished. They violate each individual’s right to express political opinions, as recognized by the First Amendment. The argument that such censorship is needed for a functioning democracy inverts the proper relationship between citizens and government. Government should enforce laws that respect individual rights. Citizens should not sacrifice their rights on the altar of a “healthy democracy.” People do not exist for the sake of the State.

If you do not mind empowering government to censor certain political speech, where does it stop? If government can censor televised issue ads, then why not prohibit the same ads broadcast on YouTube? After all, it takes money to make a well-produced video. Or how about the same message published in a newspaper, or as a pamphlet or book?

Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson sums up the issue well: “It’s not the government’s job to protect us from ideas, even those backed by people and groups with great resources, good ideas or other tools of persuasion. People either agree with speech or they do not, but they are able to make up their own minds. The Court should open the floodgates to speech and let the people decide.”

420, marijuana legalization, and your rights

Printed in the Daily Camera, April 18:

Would you argue against government’s banning a book by citing the positive outcomes of free speech? Of course not. This concedes that free speech takes a back seat to whatever authorities consider to be “good for society.” Free speech derives from our individual rights: our freedom to take action and pursue our goals through the voluntary and peaceful cooperation of others.

Drug prohibition is unjust because it violates these rights. Don’t be distracted by arguments about prison overcrowding and marijuana’s medicinal benefits. These are important issues, but do not concede your rights. Pregnancy aside, you have the right to ingest, inhale, or inject whatever you want.

Legitimate law enforcement is a response to aggression — like restraining a violent drunk from further pummeling someone. We properly celebrate civilians who do so. But we should condemn civilians who forcibly interfere with someone’s selling, buying, or smoking politically-incorrect plant. Such interference is not a response to aggression; it is aggression. Sensibly, civilians who favor drug prohibition do not partake in such aggression themselves; they delegate it to government employees.

Yes, some people will ruin their lives by abusing drugs, whether they are banned or not. If this concerns you, consider supporting drug rehab charities instead of destructive prohibitions that violate our rights.

*     *     *

For a great video on marijuana legalization by Drew Carey, and one with John Stossel on ABC News, and other resources (20/20), see here.

The piece in the Daily Camera was in answer to this week’s question:

A pro-pot student group is holding a three-day symposium in Boulder starting this weekend, leading up to the annual 4/20 campus “smoke out” session on Monday. The talks and event are aimed at the decriminalization of marijuana, which many people think is a drug that should remain illegal. What do you think?

Reminder of freedoms we do have

Sure, both of the United States oppose free speech through their support of campaign finance laws. But we have much to appreciate here, as Ethiopian journalist Habtamu Dugo discusses in this video.