"Don't Worry, He'll Realize The Irony Soon Enough"

UPDATE: Damn video Nazi's work fast. YouTube pulled that clip. Fortunately, Robert Stacy found an alternate version of it. And Vimeo had this copy.

PREVIOUSLY:

Funny enough, Robert Stacy was asking for someone to do this earlier today.

Some NSFW language in the captioning.

Via Ace, again.

This Should Help Answer Some Questions About The Citizens United Case That Went Before The Supreme Court

Via Below The Beltway.

"Who Decides How Much Americans Can Speak During Elections?"

Explains the McCain-Fiengold ruling that happened in the Supreme Court better than I could.

Will the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision destroy American democracy? You might think so given the responses of its critics. The Citizens United decision, far from signaling the fall of the republic, strengthens the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

Political speech should be the most protected of all. As in, not censored or limited at all. Please read the entire report.

Besides, the ruling gets guys like Frank Schaeffer's panties all in a knot. That in and of itself is a good thing.

Remember Frank's four inevitable truths before reading him.

RELATED: Blogs just as protected under the First Amendment as the Press. Seeing how they are a natural progression of the news cycle.

The First Amendment protects all citizens in their ability to speak and write and blog.

In evaluating constitutional rights, some jurists and legal scholars use "originalism." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is perhaps foremost among them.

"Our manner of interpreting the Constitution," he says, "is to begin with the text and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted."

Speech is speech, whether it's spoken, written on paper or transmitted over copper and glass. It ought to be protected as such.

What The Repeal of McCain-Feingold Really Means

The Supreme struck down part of the McCain-Feingold law earlier this week as unconstitutional.

What that means to most people is explained right here. It's not just 'evil corporations'.

From the CATO Institute.



Via Insty and The Examiner.

Something To Ponder Over

I don't know too much about the background of the video below other than the group, Young American's for Liberty dared to speak out without the proper permit in Washington DC.



Are permits to assemble really the best route to go regarding the right to free speech and assemble? It's one way to help filter the system. If you need a permit to protest on the steps of City Hall, then it sorts out more of the random mob mentality. Takes planning in advance to get the permit and a chance to get the people organized as to where and when. But it also gives the Public Servant (Mayor, Senator, whoever the Public Servant is. And they are Servants to the Public) knowledge before hand so that they can be away.

There is a need to assemble sans permit. Say Senator Richard Head (State Notarealname) is called back to his home office for a day or two. What city bureaucracy can possess a permit to assemble in that amount of time? The same Sen. Head has been ignoring what his constituency has been telling him how to vote as Senator in this representative Republic. At that point, it wouldn't be an assemble but more of a spontaneous gathering of concerned and informed citizens who want their viewpoint heard.

Permits for speaking is a controlling issue. When government -- whether local, state or national -- is dictating who and who can't speak and assemble in a public area, is that still free speech anymore?

Cross posted here.