HJR 171: Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's note: This post, by Brian Balfour, was originally published in the in Bad Bill of the Week section of Civitas's online edition.

    This week's Bad Bill of the Week is actually a House Joint Resolution. HJR 171, crafted by Rep. Verla Insko (D-Orange), urges the NC General Assembly to draft a resolution opposing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to reverse the free speech rights protected by the United decision.

    For those who may not recall, the United decision reversed previous laws that banned independent political expenditures by corporations (including non-profits and unions). The expansion of free speech rights was met by liberal groups as some sort of "threat against democracy" - and Rep. Insko wants the U.S. Constitution amended to enshrine a permanent ban on free speech exercised by groups of individuals classified as "corporations."

    Opposition to the United decision, however, has nothing to do with preserving democracy or the voice of average citizens. Like most liberal/progressive issues, it has to do with control. In this case, liberal politicians want to control political speech by determining who gets to speak.

    Taken to its logical conclusion, those who want to ban political speech from corporations would prohibit book publishers from publishing books praising or critical of certain candidates.

    The answer to political speech you don't approve of is not to silence those speaking, but rather to counter with your own speech. A free society doesn't use government force to silence people.

    One final note, for those concerned about big money in politics: Take a look at the size of government. The larger the size and scope of government intrusion into our lives, the more is at stake for individuals and businesses alike. Government meddling creates the need for businesses and other groups to spend money to influence politicians in order to either gain political privileges or fend off harmful restrictions. Reducing the reach of government would drastically reduce the felt need for organizations to spend money on the political process.

    Because it would undermine one of the core principles of a free society - free speech - HJR 171 is this week's Bad Bill of the Week.
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Tillman Time: WEEB radio shows The Pilot how this news reportin' stuff is DONE Civitas Institute, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics What liberals need to understand about 'Gun Guys/Gals'


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Barr had previously said he would jump off a bridge before supporting Trump
illegal alien "asylum seeker" migrants are a crime wave on both sides of the Atlantic
Decision is a win for election integrity. NC should do the same.
Biden regime intends to force public school compliance as well as colleges

HbAD1

prosecutors appeal acquittal of member of parliament in lower court for posting Bible verse
Biden abuses power to turn statute on its head; womens groups to sue
The Missouri Senate approved a constitutional amendment to ban non-U.S. citizens from voting and also ban ranked-choice voting.
Democrats prosecuting political opponets just like foreign dictrators do
populist / nationalist / sovereigntist right are kingmakers for new government
18 year old boy who thinks he is girl planned to shoot up elementary school in Maryland
Biden assault on democracy continues to build as he ramps up dictatorship
One would think that the former Attorney General would have known better

HbAD2

 
Back to Top