Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Only in a free society could you have a newspaper devoted to the idea that there should be no such thing as free speech.In another column-length rant against freedom of political speech, Cindi Ross Scoppe strenuously objects to the political thought crime of sending out postcards. What's wrong with sending out postcards? According to Cindi, the problem is that these postcards make powerful people like Bill Cotty scared. Why, they're frightened to act in good conscience because they might lose an election. And if they lose the election, then the whole power system experiences turnover—based on nothing more firm than the will of the people. No one knows better than Cindi how fickle and uneducated the people can be. Thank goodness for Cindi!Seriously, this is a paradox: What sort of logic is it for our freedom of speech to allow people to call for what amounts to censorship? You're not going to find a bigger defender of the Constitution than me, but this part could use an improvement. Advocating censorship is despicable.In Communist China, no one write postcards against the powerful people in the government. If you do, you can receive unwelcome visits from powerful government officials. Why does Cindi Scoppe want to import Chinese political ideals to the U.S.?But wait, there's more! When she's not pushing her pro-censorship ideals—and make no mistake, that's what her anti-speech laws are doing—she's also engaging in disinformation.Of course Bill Cotty's not worried about his winning his own election! (Even though he almost lost his primary and will likely lose the general election.) Bill Cotty's not the kind of politician who worries about such trifles as winning elections. Nor are Gene Pinson or Adam Taylor or Dan Cooper worried about elections. In fact, everyone who's against a Parent's-Right-to-Choose-Schools and a Taxpayer's-Right-to-Not-Get-Hosed is a noble statesman who is unconcerned with such little things as popular opinion and representative government.How dumb does Cindi Scoppe think we are?On the one hand, Scoppe claims that pro-tax politicians are invulnerable to criticism from conservative citizens' groups. On the other hand, she thinks that criticizing the government ought to be regulated out of existence so incumbents can hold their seats for ever and ever.Cindi, sweetheart: you know that you are my favorite female columnist on The State Opinion page. But please—PLEASE!—do not spit on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Posted by Bill Smith at 3:55 PM |
49 comments
Monday, August 14, 2006
As usual with libel cases, the answer is unclear.The way that I understand libel law--and I know more about this than I ought to--is that libel against a public figure is difficult to prove because it must meet these standards: (1) It has to be willfully, not mistakenly, false on a matter of fact not opinion (2) For public figures--who have greater recourse in the press than private individuals--the writing must do material harm to their reputation. In practice, I think this means that a knowingly false statement demonstrably cost them money.Whether or not it meets the legal definition of libel, Ross Shealy definitely took the low road by going after Karen Iocavelli for having Lyme Disease. He can say that her politics are goofy or mean-spirited or ill-informed, but going after people for being physically sick is, well, a little sick. Shealy might defend himself by saying that he only pointed it out because Iacovelli subsequently took a position on the Board of Advisiors for the Club for Growth. But everyone knows the difference between being on a corporate board and on one that's run by the government. The latter is far more inflexible.So Shealy's excuse wouldn't wash. Making fun of a Lyme Disease patient is pretty low.It would acquit his family name to apologize but I'm not expecting it.
Posted by Bill Smith at 1:02 PM |
33 comments
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
More rah-rah "
journalism" from
The State.
Posted by Bill Smith at 11:55 AM |
16 comments
Friday, August 04, 2006
No, I'm not talking about the non-standard spelling of her first name.Lately, Cindi Scoppe has been obsessed with squelching the free speech rights of anyone interested in participating in South Carolina politics. This time, she's going after convenient bogeyman SCRG for daring to fight for the rights of South Carolina children with out-of-state money. The horror! Finally, someone is sending money into South Carolina. Clearly, nothing good can come of this.
Any rational person who saw those postcards, particularly the ones that were attached to plastic pink pigs, would consider them an attempt to “influence the outcome” of the primaries — which triggers state reporting requirements.
Here's the problem. There's nothing wrong with trying to influence the outcome of elections. In our democracy, we the people govern ourselves. But only after widespread campaigning, cajoling, debate and deliberation. As citizens, we owe each other reasons for wanting to pursue this policy or that one or electing this politician and not the other. Participation in politics should not be a taboo—it's closer to being a duty. (But it's not actually a duty; I don't advocate throwing pepole in jail for not voting.)
Anyway, where was I? Oh that's right. Those postcards. Here's the deal.
Cindi, sweetheart. You work for a private corporation. A private, out-of-state corporation. A private, out-of-state corporation that tries to influence the outcome of elections. The private, out-of-state corporation that you work for spends quite a bit more money in production and distribution costs than SCRG, even if sometimes to a lesser effect.
Now what if the State Elections Commission were to come to The State and say, "Look, we've had some pretty close elections lately. We know you've been spending a lot of money to influence those elections. We know you're out-of-state company. We just want to make sure that everything is done fair, according to the book. We just want to know the names of all your investors and the exact amount you use to publish your daily newspaper with its endorsements and pronounced left-wing political coverage."
What do you think the reaction to that would be? Scoppe and Warthen would complain that it's a violation of freedom of speech since under the Constitution, people have the right to speak without prior restraint. And you know what? They'd be right.
Oh, but Cindi's not done yet. There's also this beauty of a column from yesterday. In it, Ms. Scoppe equates Tommy Moore's decision to take money from the Chemical and Nuclear Waste industry to Mark Sanford's acceptance of contributions to fight for every child's chance to attend a school that works for them.
Just to recap: According to Scoppe...
Shilling for the Chemical and Nuclear Industry to Import Waste into South Carolina = Fighting for Every Parent's Right to Send Kids to a Safe, High-Achieving School.
Does that seem right to you?
Posted by Bill Smith at 12:03 PM |
21 comments
