Civil Liberties 5 | ***Dave Does the Blog

Texas hospitality (gays need not apply)

Two women marry, legally, in California. One spouse takes the other's name, automatically, legally, no fuss, no muss. The change of name was recorded on her California drivers license and on her US social security card.

But, on moving to Texas, she finds she cannot get a Texas drivers license because, well, her birth certificate has her birth name on it and, by golly, all those social security and previous drivers license cards don't count for ID because that would mean Texas was "recognizing" one of those evil gay "marriage" things.

Unless she wants to spend $500 and bring it before a judge and hope that said judge thinks her desire to change her name is legit, and isn't somehow part of some Evil Un-Biblical Gay Plot.

Dear Texas: recognizing the name that someone brings to your state, as previously established by the federal government and the state that she formerly resided in, is not somehow going to cover you with gay cooties, let alone represent your moral approval of two women being legally wed. But failing to recognize it will probably be a great way of getting your current state constitutional amendment struck down.

Originally shared by +Kee Hinckley:

Texas is refusing to recognize name changes due to same-sex marriages.
An out-of-state marriage certificate isn't considered sufficient ID.
You can go spend $500 and see if a judge will agree to change your last name from Smith to Smith, but you can't just show them the marriage certificate they accept for all other couples.
I don't see any way that's going to stand up in court. If a California citizen legally changed their name in California, then I've got to believe Texas has to recognize the name change. But they'll fight it all the way I'm sure.

Texas Woman Denied Driver’s License over Same-Sex Marriage
Connie Wilson says the Texas Department of Public Safety refused her a driver’s license because her last name was changed through a same-sex marriage.

View on Google+

It's a horrifyingly radical change … to the way things were before

The other day I blogged (https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2014/09/08/help-help-im-being-repressed.html) about a silly NRA press release nattering on about the current quixotic effort by Senatorial Dems to pass a constitutional amendment allowing for campaign finance limits, rolling back the clock to before the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling decreed that corporations are people, friend, when it comes to free speech, which of course means money, or the subsequent SCOTUS McConnell v. FEC ruling that said aggregate spending limits on individuals in campaigns were also a violation of free speech.

Well, the editors of the National Review want you to know that the NRA is not just the lobbying arm of the American gun industry, but hold a position that is just like theirs. To wit, that what the Democrats are trying to do is "voting to repeal the First Amendment," in an attempt to "to suppress criticism of themselves and the government, and to suffocate any political discourse that they cannot control."

Yeah, just like John McCain did back when he passed a campaign finance reform law. Back when the idea that corporations couldn't be limited from contributing money to campaigns, or that individuals couldn't be capped in their ability ~~speak~~ spend, was considered a Bizarro World opinion.

The text of the proposed amendment is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/148408191/Udall-Constitutional-Amendment-on-Campaign-Finance

The National Review editors go on, gravely, that the amendment "would invest Congress with blanket authority to censor newspapers and television reports, ban books and films, and imprison people for expressing their opinions. So long as two criteria are met — the spending of money and intending to influence an election — the First Amendment would no longer apply."

The National Review editors are laboring under two misapprehensions (to say the least).

First, they consider the only form of effective advocacy to be the spending of money. They buy into (so to speak (so to speak)) the idea that if you aren't throwing money at it, you aren't really speaking.

This says volumes about what they consider "free speech" to be, and why the idea that a rich person, or a rich corporation, is therefore entitled by their wealth to de facto more speech than you or me is so pernicious.

I have a lot of ways that I can express my opinion, including about elections, without spending money. They work a lot better when not drowned out by multi-million-dollar ad campaigns.

Second, they've missed Section 3 of the amendment: "Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press."

So all that stuff about censoring newspapers and television reports. Um … not so much.

"It is worth reiterating that for all of the apocalyptic talk about all-powerful corporations, the Citizens United decision was at its heart about the fact that the government sought to make it a crime to show a film critical of Hillary Clinton at a time when she was running for office."

No, that it was illegal for a corporation (or a union) to produce and air an electioneering broadcast mentioning (favorably or unfavorably) a candidate in a federal election being held within 60 days. That's hardly Patrick Henry territory there.

"A First Amendment that does not protect criticizing political figures is not a First Amendment at all. The amendment that Democrats are putting forward is an attack on basic human rights, the Constitution, and democracy itself. If those who would criticize the government must first secure the government’s permission to do so, they are not free people."

Really? Because I don't see anything in here about asking the government's permission for criticizing government. I see something here about leveling the playing field for people spending money in support of (or opposition to) any candidate. I don't think this means what you think it means — unless your are treating the First Amendment as the Freedom to Spend Money.

"Harry Reid and Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, the amendment’s author, should be ashamed of themselves. The First Amendment has been a bulwark of liberty for more than two centuries, since long before either of the states that these vandals represent was even in the Union."

Restrictions on campaign spending were first introduced in 1907, with the Tillman Act. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1925) and the Hatch Act (1939) also placed various curbs and restrictions on ~~free speech~~ monetary contributions. Further restrictions went into play in 1943 (the Smith-Connally Act) and 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act).

In 1974, in the aftermath of Watergate, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was amended to impose more comprehensive campaign finance restrictions and expenditures, with further amendments in 1976. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, aka McCain-Feingold) was passed in 2002 and signed into law by George W. Bush.

None of the worthies, of either party, involved in these various exercises (including signing Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, and George W. Bush) didn't see these as restrictions on the First Amendment. And whether you count the 103 years from the Tillman Act to Citizens United,, or the 60 years since the FECA amendments to today, the nation seems to have endured in that time without a totalitarian regime imprisoning en masse of journalists and citizens for criticizing those in power.

Now, honestly, I'd rather we didn't amend the Constitution, on principle. But the Supreme Court has made it clear that, 5-4, they consider spending money to be free speech, and corporations as protected by free speech in this context as natural human beings. If we disagree with that, there's little to do but to amend the Constitution to address the problem.

It seems to me the National Review headline should read, "We'll take Free Spending, Thank You." For my part, I'd like to think we live in a democracy, not a plutocracy, you're welcome.

The Editors – We’ll Take Free Speech, Thank You
Senate Democrats are on the precipice of voting to repeal the First Amendment.
That extraordinary fact is a result of the increasingly authoritarian efforts of Democrats, notably Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, to suppress criticism of themselves and the government, and to suffocate any political discourse that they cannot control.
The Supreme Court in recent years has twice struck down Democratic efforts to legally suppress inconv…

View on Google+

"Help! Help! I’m being repressed!"

The Daily Caller article manages to bury a single reference in the middle that makes it clear that what’s being talked about is financial contributions, not “free speech” as most people (besides a slim majority on SCOTUS and corporate lobbying groups) recognize it.

To be sure, the Senate Dems are playing politics as well, since it’s obvious that no such Constitutional Amendment could possibly pass Congress at this time. But the self-righteous disingenuousness of the NRA here is breathtaking.

Originally shared by +National Rifle Association:

In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court removed unconstitutional restrictions on the ability to speak freely at election time for grassroots groups like NRA and others. Now, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is aggressively trying to reverse the decision by pushing “Senate Joint Resolution 19,” a proposed “amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.”

Harry Reid Trying To Use Constitutional Amendment To Silence NRA, Its Members, And Free Speech

In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a key decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision removed unconstitutional restrictions on the ability t

View on Google+

Free Speech vs Terrorist Support

What are the boundaries of Constitutional protection of Free Speech (esp. regarding political topics), vs incitement of and coordination with Evil Terrorists Who Want To Kill Us? And, no, you can't cop out with a "I'll know it when I see it?" excuse.

(And, no, I don't have a clear answer. I'll know it when I see it. But I'd much prefer to err on the side of Free Speech.)

Is Translating Jihadist Texts on the Internet a Crime?

In the spring of 2005, Tarek Mehanna began translating radical Arabic books and videos into English for the website At Tibyan. The materials had an undeniable flavor of terrorism, encouraging readers to join al-Qaida and kill American soldiers in Iraq. But even the government acknowledges that Mehanna never translated anything…

View on Google+

So … maybe … the world hasn’t gone completely crazy

It seems that the story last week (https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2014/08/31/which-is-dangerously-crazy-one-might-ask.html) about an teacher who was hauled off Soviet-style for mental examination after it was discovered he had written a book that involved a school shooting in the future … was not altogether accurate.

According to the authorities (who, it now seems, are back from a leisurely Labor Day vacation), the real issue had to do with a letter that the gent wrote. He is undergoing mental health care, but was never arrested.

Mental health issues, not books, led to teacher’s suspension

Reports circulated this weekend that a middle school teacher in Dorchester County, Md., had been placed on administrative leave over his two futuristic novels about school violence. That is not that case, authorities tell the L.A. Times.

View on Google+

YOU WILL OBEY! OBEY!

(To be said, of course, in a Dalek voice.)

There's not a lot I can add to +Yonatan Zunger's thoughts on the following paragraph, coming from a professor of "homeland security" and a long-term (and current) member of the LAPD:

''If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?'

1. Aside from that paragraph, and a few supporting ones beyond it, the writer has a lot of good stuff to say, including recommendations about car cameras, body cameras, and a lot of other things.

2. This is actually not bad advice in most circumstances. There's very little to be gained in most cases in getting up in a cop's face about something. You can catch more flies (and fewer citations) with honey instead of vinegar. And taunting or aggravating or threatening the guy with the state sanction to hurt you if he thinks it's justified (or justifiable) is rarely a good idea.

But, then, I'm rarely harassed by cops. Neither are my neighbors. I don't have to worry about (perceived or real) racial profiling. I don't usually attend protests. I've managed to avoid having the SWAT teams kick in my door because they got the address wrong. So my perspective here may be skewed.

But a key difference is that I'm not a cop saying this. If I advice my friends, my daughter, my readers, to, in general, treat cops with tempered calm and friendliness, and to comply with their requests except when (a) in custody or (b) they feel profoundly wrong, that's my advice as a civilian. When a police officers advises you that the way to avoid getting tazed or beaten or sprayed is to OBEY (and then file a complaint later), it's far too easy to see that as … well, a threat, not a well-meant piece of advice.

As to the rest of my opinions, Yonatan says them as well if not better than I can.

Reshared post from +Yonatan Zunger

This is a profoundly disturbing editorial. It's an op-ed written by a police officer in the Washington Post, and its message is very simple:
"If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?"
I wish I could tell you that this article betrayed a sense of the absurd, or that it was meant in some kind of satirical fashion. It isn't. His argument is simple: you have no idea what's going on for that cop or what the cop is going through. The cop has the right to use whatever force is needed. So if you don't want to get shot, do everything the cop says, never argue, never object. Later, he says, you can "ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated."
To list a few of the exceptionally obvious things which this ignores:
(1) All of the arguments that you don't know what a cop is going through, that this "routine traffic stop" is actually very dangerous for them, and so on, apply just as well to the person being stopped. In fact, especially if you don't look white and upper-class enough, that routine stop is even more dangerous for you than for the cop: the cop doesn't know if you're armed and willing to become violent, but (by Dutta's own admission) you do know that the cop is. Saying that people being stopped need to be respectful and do what the cop says, but that the cop isn't under any such obligation to anyone else, is an invitation for violence.
(2) These post facto remedies which he suggests are incredibly limited in their value. Go ahead and lodge a complaint; it will promptly be filed in the appropriate place. Under the POBOR (Peace Officers' Bill of Rights, a California law) and similar laws elsewhere, you get all sorts of guarantees here: for example, that if a decision is made in regards to your complaint, you will be notified of that decision within 30 days. It does not guarantee, for example, that a decision will actually be made, and in fact it guarantees that if a decision isn't made within a year, the officer will face no consequences from it. The police have a tremendous degree of immunity, and outside of very exceptional situations, are investigated only by an internal system.
(You can read the text of the POBOR here: https://www.cslea.com/legal/pobor . Other states have similar laws, but you should check your own state's laws for the details)
(3) If a police officer does something wrong during a stop, it can have serious consequences for you, which will not be redressed no matter what. As far as the police are concerned, an arrest isn't a "consequence," since the courts can easily throw it out; but go ahead and explain that to your employer when you're telling them why you didn't come to work. Being threatened and harassed every time you walk out the door in your neighborhood isn't a "consequence," because if the cop didn't have a good reason, they wouldn't have done anything.
Knowing that you might be publicly bullied and humiliated, in front of your children, your spouse, or your employer, that you may be searched, beaten, or arrested at any time — and that such things happen routinely to you and everyone around you — is something acceptable, in the view of this editorial, because you have the right to file a grievance later with the same organization which has decided that this behavior is, at a baseline, OK.
My purpose here isn't to say that people should be rude or threatening to cops. I'm saying that the obligation of police and citizens is a reciprocal obligation. It is absolutely true that the work of police is dangerous and complicated, and they require certain allowances in order to be able to do their jobs; however, if you translate that to "they must be granted unlimited authority over the citizenry, and must never be challenged, except after the fact and in very limited ways," then the police have been set up to become villains, not heroes.
Dutta's attitude is profoundly corrupted: he has taken the real and reasonable fears of police about doing their jobs, and expanded it into a notion of the police as being a class above the public, with tremendous powers of force and coercion, and subject to not even contradiction. If you heard this sort of statement from soldiers, you would think you were living in a military junta; if you hear this from police officers, you wonder if they think we are living in a junta.
h/t +Xenophrenia for the link.

I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.
It’s not the police, but the people they stop, who can prevent a detention from turning into a tragedy.