Say Anything Blog

The attacks on the 1st amendment right of free expression goes on without abatement even with the vast majority of higher court decisions going against the suppressors of free speech.  The speech suppressors are not just the Congressional Democrats but include many members of municipal governments and school systems.  Their usual excuse for the suppression is that other legal considertions trump freedom of expression which, of course, is contrary to the US Constitution which states that any form of ‘abridging the freedom of speech’ is unconstitutional.

What I find most troubling is that speech suppression cases have to be appealed to higher courts before the wrongful act against free speech is rectified.  From this, one could surmise that lower court judges are ignorant of our constitutional rights. 

One of the latest speech suppression cases to be resolved in favor of the defendants has the dramatic title Court allows display of ‘bloody’ aborted babies

Some signs used by pro-life protesters to spur a public reaction against abortion may be graphic, but that doesn’t mean they’re illegal and can be confiscated, according to a new ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The decision reversed the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad, who displayed the signs on an overpass in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka during the run-up to the 2004 national elections.

The majority decesions was primarily based on the failure of the plantiffs to prove their case.

the state’s highest court unanimously reversed the convictions, determining that prosecutors simply failed to prove their case: that the signs created any danger to the public

Of course, there is the typical caveats leaving room for additional acts of speech suppression

."Our decision does not foreclose the possibility that some sign might distract motorists in such a way as to endanger the public and constitute a public nuisance. Nor does our decision require a police officer on the scene to wait until an accident occurs or is threatened before intervening. An officer can and should use his or her experience and expertise to determine whether a sign constitutes a danger to a considerable number of members of the public before that danger manifests itself in injuries,” the court opinion said

Although voting with the majority, Justice Alan Page had a different opinion which I think is the correct one.

In Page’s concurring opinion, he noted that “it is clear on this record that the state’s prosecution of appellants under that statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment.”

”Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,” the concurrence said