Republicans in the Leg decide they cannot protect us from bad thoughts after all

Just in case you it missed the Arizona Legislative committee considering the stupid bill that would regulated various kinds of free speech is dead (for now).

Beware: The leg wants to protect us from bad thoughts

The Arizona Republic has this article about a bill making its way through the Legislature that will attempt to ban several rather reprehensible things. It is intended to do things like ban materials that are related to rape, bomb making and how to administer date rape drugs. Most of us would agree that the goal is laudable, but the like most legislation the danger is in the details.

People who create or sell material that causes someone to commit a serious crime
could be sued under a bill that faces a hearing today in the Arizona Legislature
that is expected to draw a number of opponents from various industries.

First, where is the bright line between good material and bad? Does making people who sell these materials responsible (book stores) make sense? Do we want to Legislature getting involved in such things?

The founding fathers were quite correct when they created Freedom of Speech as a right. It is very difficult to regulate ideas, it is nearly impossible in an Internet age... The simple fact is that if we want a free society we have to tolerate the existence of things we find offensive. We also have freedom of choice about were and when we purchase things like books. People that are worried about these sorts of things should seek bookstores that share their values.

We should prosecute people when it makes sense, but even there we need to be careful. We have to accept that freedom does not come with out sacrifices.

Censorship is such a lonely word...

This article from Arizona Republic outlines the latest attempt to change the 9/11 memorial to reflect the right-wing's infantile view of history. I wish I knew the answer to the question of why the Legislature has the power to do this?

Built with $500,000 in private donations, its sweeping design of concrete and steel includes rubble from the World Trade Center and Pentagon and dust from
the Pennsylvania field where the final hijacked plane crashed. Sunlight passes through 54 inscriptions laser-cut into the memorial's cylindrical face, making
the phrases visible on the concrete below.

I cannot understand why a privately funded monument would not be protected by the First Amendment? The word censorship is thrown around a lot just like fascism and Nazi, but this truly is censorship. When the government seeks editorial control over a privately funded project, it is textbook censorship. It is OK for people to have different view points. People are not hurt by reading things with which they disagree.

Every member of the legislature who voted for this bill is not only unpatriotic, but also cares nothing for the rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution.

Calling All Republicans Bloggers!

There are some good Republican/Conservative bloggers in Arizona. Specifically, EspressoPundit seems to be commendable (although, I disagree with him on much). I am calling on all bloggers, left and right, to beat the drum about the assault on the Constitution by Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. I know he is one of you and you are probably reluctant to criticize a fellow Republican, but today we have to all be Americans (even at A Democrat's Lament). Please join me in denouncing this assault on the First Amendment.

Soldiers do not need protection from free speech: The tee shirt roundup

I am sure I am not the only one who saw the irony in this purely political action. The legislature should be ashamed of themselves for not standing up for the Constitution. The Arizona Republic has the good news here . Here is a previous post about the issue that I did not publish:

There are bills making their rounds of state legislatures to protect dead soldiers names from being reprinted without the family's permission. The EVT has this article. There are so many issues surrounding this action. First, it is fairly inconsequential except to a few families that are actually concerned about this and of course the politicians trying to score political points. These sorts of bills always make me uncomfortable because they seem blatantly unconstitutional. It is sort of ironic that a soldier whose duty is to not only defend and protect his country, but also the Constitution would be singled out for protection that violates the constitution. Now, I know that most people are not a libertarian as I am. I believe that most Constitutional rights are pretty absolute. Among these rights, political speech maybe the most protected. This bill seems to be a clear violation of freedom of speech. Given that, why are so many legislators willing to vote for it. Is it simply political fear? Or is it that they know it is so likely to be overturned? Both? How do we build a culture that tolerates the free exercise of every one's rights? The simple fact is that it is easy to say America is a free country, but it is quite another thing to continue to believe in freedom when you find someone doing something reprehensible (not that company in Flagstaff is doing anything wrong in my book). Having said all of that, I
would be mad as Hell if my son or daughter died in Iraq and someone was using their name for a political purpose that I found offensive. Ultimately, we as citizens have to learn to have a thicker skin when it comes to political disagreement.

Come on Guys, Really, You Didn't Read the Bill?

I wrote about this stupid bill that passed the Arizona Legislature a while back. I understand the sentiment behind not allowing soldiers names to be used without their families' permission. The simple fact is that legislators at their best are supposed to protect our freedoms even when it might be unpopular. I don't expect the soldier's family to be rational when they just lost a loved one, but legislators should take a longer view.


A bill aimed at trying to silence one guy making t-shirts should make anyone pause. Clearly no matter how the bill was put together, it was a violation of the First Amendment. The simple fact is that you all voted for it because you were afraid not to. I get that, it is political reality, but don't give me the babe in the woods act about not knowing what is in the bill. You cannot have it both ways (I am talking to you Prezelski and Sinema in particular), I would expect you to know better. BTW -- I know you guys don't read the bills, but really, admitting it in the newspaper? Really disappointing...