Thursday, April 22, 2010
Click Cartoon for Larger Size
FAIR WARNING: We have to apologize in advance that today's topic is disturbing...and if you had a hard time with the cartoon, you may want to skip the details in the link below. That being said, we really DO have a point to make beyond pure revulsion.
The Supreme Court has struck down a law intended to prevent the spread of so-called "Crush videos," in which women torture and kill small animals while engaging in sexual language. The reason given is that the law, as written, was overly broad...and so is a violation of Constitutionally protected free speech.
This is not a partisan issue. The court voted 8-1 to strike down the law, both conservatives and liberals, and we can only imagine the distaste and reluctance of the justices who cast those votes in order to protect the right of free speech.
The justices understood the absolutely critical and essential importance of free speech to our country. But if such horrendous "speech" is protected...what kind of speech should not be protected?
According to the mainstream media, complaints about taxes, the national debt, and lack of transparency or accountability in government are being described as "seditious," especially when uttered by people like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.
All of which is to say that the Supreme Court understands the importance of free speech, and those who are attacking conservatives and the Tea Party movement (including an all-too-visible Bill Clinton) do not. And make no mistake- the enemies of Constitutionally protected speech, whether by intent or ignorance - are dangerous enemies of freedom.
Postscript: the Supreme Court has said that a more narrowly worded law against "crush videos" probably would pass Constitutional muster, and we certainly hope that lawmakers will waste no time in getting one enacted.