Supreme Court Issues Election "Gag Order" On Labor Unions!

Supreme Court's Gag Rule on Us
'The Powerful Have Only Gotten More Powerful'
by Nat Hentoff

Village Voice
January 23rd, 2004

In covering the Supreme Court's historic cutting down of the First Amendment right of individual Americans who belong to independent organizations to get their views expressed, the press has greatly underestimated the effect of the court's banning these groups' television and radio ads close to federal primaries and general elections.

The rule now is that these ads on social and political issues cannot be on the air within 30 days of a primary or 60 days before a general election. The law will be violated, says the Supreme Court, even if "advertisements do not urge the viewer to vote for or against a candidate in so many words they are no less clearly intended to influence the election."

What do "in so many words" and "clearly intended" mean?

But along with the vagueness of this silencing prior restraint of speech that twists the First Amendment out of shape, there is the further abuse of the First Amendment right to associate for political purposes, which the AFL-CIO emphasized in its brief to the Supreme Court in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the case in which the court, 5 to 4, upheld the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation.

Independent organizations—not tied to political parties—wanting to place broadcast ads criticizing George W. Bush will have these obstacles, as detailed by the AFL-CIO:

"Beginning 30 days before the first primary or caucus . . . December 14, 2003 . . . Section 203 will criminalize broadcast references to the President in a series of geographic blackouts that will continuously ripple through the Nation, blocking every broadcast outlet, wherever located, whose signal can reach 50,000 persons in an upcoming primary or caucus state until June 8, 2004.

"This blackout will become national in scope on July 31, 30 days before the August 30-September 2 Republican National Convention . . . and it will then continue without interruption throughout the remaining 60 days until the November 2 election. Thus, from July 31, 2004 until the election, it will be a crime for a union, corporation, or incorporated non-profit organization to pay to broadcast any 'reference' to the President
by 'name,' 'photograph,' 'drawing' or other 'unambiguous' means anywhere in the United States."

Here, for further examples of how this law—celebrated by The New York Times—forbids broadcast messages concerning any candidate close to primaries or general elections, the AFL-CIO lists prohibited ads that: "Call upon a Member of Congress to support or oppose imminent legislation, or ask viewers or listeners to urge the member to do so; inform the public, or express an opinion, about a Member of Congress's votes, legislative proposals or performance otherwise; respond directly to a Member who has criticized the organization or taken issue with its activities or policies; or encourage candidates to commit that, if elected, they will support or oppose particular legislation or policies."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/hentoff.php

Allow freedom of speech in theory and ban it in practice where it might have an effect. If you are lucky, people won't notice and will still think they have the right to free speech...

V

the RW can't run their vicious hit and run ads that are blatant lies but its too close to the election to rebut them effectively.

And would negative ads about Cheney and/or Ashcroft (and, by inference, the entire Bush* administration) be an effective tool against Bush*?

Does this effect Rush and Hannity and quite possibly FOX News? They are certainly paid shills for the right wing.

There are some real idiots out there, present company excepted, of course...

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you


DU Moderator

OK