Below is an excerpt from an outstanding article this week from Jacob Sullum in Reason.org on the debate over how or whether a case over speech restrictions became a battle about government censorship of books, commercials, and on-demand videos.  He concludes, it was always a battle over government censorship not merely regulating campaign finance.  In this digital and Internet age, the government’s appetite in regulating all different types and forms of speech, including even books and pamphlets, is invasive and concerning.

The proposed distinction between documentaries like Hillary:
The Movie (which the Court described as “a feature-length
negative advertisement”) and the “commercials” that
Toobin says were Congress’ real target raises similar problems: How
short can a permitted documentary be without becoming a prohibited
ad? Justice Anthony Kennedy posed another puzzler: Since BCRA’s ban on electioneering
communications refers to “satellite” communications, wouldn’t
it apply to an electronic book mentioning a federal candidate “if
it comes from a satellite”? What about books read on radio or
TV? Do they retain their talismanic paper value when converted to
audio? Contrary to the way Toobin presents it, the book
question—posed initially by Justice Samuel Alito, then pressed by
Kennedy and Roberts—was not a trick that “turned a fairly obscure
case about campaign-finance reform into a battle over government
censorship.” The battle was always about government censorship; the
question merely highlighted that point.

To provide more context, Sullum is analyzing Jeffrey Toobin’s article in the New Yorker Magazine.  Bottom Line:  The Supreme Court wasn’t playing games with the First Amendment.

In the midst of a heated election year, the director of the Defense
Department’s Federal Voting Assistance Program is stepping down.  Link.

In the midst of a heated election year, the director of the Defense
Department’s Federal Voting Assistance Program is stepping down.  Link.

A frightening story of a modern day high-tech Brownshirt can be found here.

“At 12:35 a.m. on July 1, 2011, sheriff’s deputies pounded on my front door and rang my doorbell. They shouted for me to open the door and come out with my hands up.  When I opened the door, deputies pointed guns at me and ordered me to put my hands in the air.”

What does this have to do with elections?  A person who is mentioned in the article linked below writes for the Brad Blog, a blog which relentlessly attacked Bush administration Voting Section staffers by name, in collaboration with employees within the Voting Section.

The story about the SWATTING and intimidation is shocking.  It might also be illegal.

18 USC 241 prohibits intimidation against Americans for exercising free speech rights.  The statute says:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Read the astonishing story how a writer for the Brad Blog is included in the story about a person who may have engaged in a nationwide campaign of physical intimidation by placing false 911 calls sending midnight SWAT teams to the homes of conservatives.

I’ll have more on this shortly.

Updated.

A frightening story of a modern day high-tech Brownshirt can be found here.

“At 12:35 a.m. on July 1, 2011, sheriff’s deputies pounded on my front door and rang my doorbell. They shouted for me to open the door and come out with my hands up.  When I opened the door, deputies pointed guns at me and ordered me to put my hands in the air.”

What does this have to do with elections?  A person who is mentioned in the article linked below writes for the Brad Blog, a blog which relentlessly attacked Bush administration Voting Section staffers by name, in collaboration with employees within the Voting Section.

The story about the SWATTING and intimidation is shocking.  It might also be illegal.

18 USC 241 prohibits intimidation against Americans for exercising free speech rights.  The statute says:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Read the astonishing story how a writer for the Brad Blog is included in the story about a person who may have engaged in a nationwide campaign of physical intimidation by placing false 911 calls sending midnight SWAT teams to the homes of conservatives.

I’ll have more on this shortly.

Updated.

 No kidding.

The accelerated trial will not help Texas, who bears the burden of proving a negative. 

Here are two predictions.  First, this case may well not come out in Texas’ favor for a variety of reasons too complicated to discuss today.  But the biggest reason relates to my second prediction.  The law, amended in 2006 is very unfavorable to Texas.  Section 5 was changed to make it harder to get federal approval, and Republicans voted overwhelmingly for this change. 

My second prediction is that if DOJ wins the two Voter ID cases, you will see Republican majorities in the House and Senate dial back the 2006 reauthorization changes if the Supreme Court doesn’t first wipe out Section 5.  (More on that later; even if the Shelby case strikes down the triggers for Shelby County Alabama, will it make any difference in Texas – a big topic for another day.)

 No kidding.

The accelerated trial will not help Texas, who bears the burden of proving a negative. 

Here are two predictions.  First, this case may well not come out in Texas’ favor for a variety of reasons too complicated to discuss today.  But the biggest reason relates to my second prediction.  The law, amended in 2006 is very unfavorable to Texas.  Section 5 was changed to make it harder to get federal approval, and Republicans voted overwhelmingly for this change. 

My second prediction is that if DOJ wins the two Voter ID cases, you will see Republican majorities in the House and Senate dial back the 2006 reauthorization changes if the Supreme Court doesn’t first wipe out Section 5.  (More on that later; even if the Shelby case strikes down the triggers for Shelby County Alabama, will it make any difference in Texas – a big topic for another day.)

Justice Department sources confirm that Justice Department lawyers will be going to Harris County Texas to examine whether Harris is using Chinese ballots to the satisfaction of the DOJ.  DOJ lawyers will be there on Monday. 

Harris County officials of course have no obligation to expose the inner workings of their compliance with Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.  DOJ lawyers visit locations like Harris first and foremost to gather evidence which may later be used in a lawsuit against jurisdictions.  If they detect problems, the DOJ lawyers will begin to build a case or other enforcement action against Harris.  Whether Harris County cooperates in building a lawsuit against Harris County is up to them.

On the other hand, Harris County could merely assure DOJ on the phone they are complying with the law and any agreements (in the unlikely event the agreements have not expired).  This would force the DOJ lawyers coming to Houston on Monday to build a case through hard work rather than unwitting confessions by Harris officials.

Justice Department sources confirm that Justice Department lawyers will be going to Harris County Texas to examine whether Harris is using Chinese ballots to the satisfaction of the DOJ.  DOJ lawyers will be there on Monday. 

Harris County officials of course have no obligation to expose the inner workings of their compliance with Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.  DOJ lawyers visit locations like Harris first and foremost to gather evidence which may later be used in a lawsuit against jurisdictions.  If they detect problems, the DOJ lawyers will begin to build a case or other enforcement action against Harris.  Whether Harris County cooperates in building a lawsuit against Harris County is up to them.

On the other hand, Harris County could merely assure DOJ on the phone they are complying with the law and any agreements (in the unlikely event the agreements have not expired).  This would force the DOJ lawyers coming to Houston on Monday to build a case through hard work rather than unwitting confessions by Harris officials.

 Link here.