Captain's Quarters -

The Reward For Courage: Homelessness

Last week, this blog stood in solidarity with Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and the rest of the newspapers in Denmark who reprinted his cartoon after police uncovered a conspiracy by radical Islamists to murder him. Now Westergaard has gained a reward for his courage in confronting radical Islam and demanding freedom of speech -- homelessness. Der Spiegel tells the story:

Draw a picture offensive to Muslim extremists, and you might find yourself without a roof. Ask Kurt Westergaard, one of the twelve Danish cartoonists whose autumn 2005 Muhammad caricatures lead to violent protests throughout the Muslim world. He was booted from his police-protected hotel room on Feb. 15 for being "too much of a security risk." And now the 73-year-old cartoonist and his wife are without a place to live.

Westergaard was forced to leave his actual residence in November after the Danish security and intelligence agency, PET, informed him of a "concrete" plan to murder him, according to the paper that originally published the cartoons, Jyllands-Posten. Westergaard and his wife have been living under police protection since.

DS reports that the Muslim community in Denmark has taken pains to keep their protests rational. While voices in Muslim nations demanded blood, Danish Muslims simply protested the decision to reprint the cartoons. Nevertheless, the hotelier evicted Westergaard anyway, and now he not only cannot return home, he has nowhere else to go.

Many of us work in the business of critical writing or punditry. In the US, that vocation or avocation rarely calls for any personal sacrifice, except for a little name-calling by Internet trolls now and again. We forget that the exercise of critical speech in other areas sometimes means risking everything -- and Kurt Westergaard and his family are prime examples of this truth.

UPDATE: Forgot to hat-tip Allahpundit at Hot Air.

Solidarity

Danish newspapers have demonstrated solidarity with Kurt Westergaard and Jyllands-Posten today. After the arrests of conspirators determined to assassinate the editorial cartoonist, the other newspapers in Denmark today have reprinted the cartoon that aroused the ire of Muslims in the first place. They want to make the point that no one can intimidate them into silence:

Newspapers in Denmark Wednesday reprinted the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked worldwide protests two years ago.

The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people who allegedly were plotting a "terror-related assassination" of Kurt Westergaard, one of the cartoonist behind the drawings.

Berlingske Tidende, one of the newspapers involved in the republication, said: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend," in comments reported by The Associated Press.

The move comes amid some serious soul-searching in Europe. The incident has clarified issues regarding Islamic aggressiveness in intimidating people into silence. CNN notes that the arrests have made it clear to Europeans that Islamists intend on suppressing speech in order to keep criticism of their actions to a minimum.

Unfortunately, American newspapers and media outlets do not appear interested in expressing the same solidarity. CNN doesn't include the image in its report, and so far, I haven't seen any newspaper cover it yet, although they may tomorrow. Only the New York Times gave any coverage to the arrests in today's editions.

In solidarity with the Danish newspapers, here's the cartoon that has assassins targeting Westergaard:

Perhaps bloggers can take up some of the slack, and provide some leadership for our media outlets here in the US. At the very least, we can do so to salute the courage of the Danes on the front lines for free speech. It's easy to defend free speech when it doesn't cost anyone anything. The Danes have manned the barricades when it counts. (via CapQ reader Paul Havenmann)

UPDATE: I will try to link any blogger who links this post and demonstrates solidarity with the Danes by publishing this cartoon. If you can't get a trackback, put the link in my comments. I'll post updates during the day with links as I see them, at least for today.

UPDATE II: Michelle and I were posting on this at about the same time, and with the same thought. She has the list of solidarity bloggers from the blogburst two years ago.

BUMP: To top.

THE LIST:

Michelle Malkin (linked above)
The Trading Post
DocWeasel (warning: NSFW)
Deaconblue
Pirate's Cove
Flap
Sharinlite
My Inner Scream
Ladies Logic
Squid Shark
No Burqua
Bookworm Room
Savage Republican
YACRWB
Musing Minds
Common Folk Using Common Sense
Exurban League
Fewmets
Nine Sixteenths
PapaRay
Voice of Liberty
Ron's Bloviating
Obiter Dictum
Five By Five
Thus Spake Ortner, The Sniper
The World According To Carl
Outside the Beltway
Diary of a Hollywood Refugee
Robert Steely
Danishova
Red-Blue America
Ernesto Serrano (Welcome to a Spanish language blog!)
Michael Reynolds
Kentucky Packrat
Liberty Zone
Jevica2003
Mac Is Whack
Vortex of Freedom
Abu Wabu
Sissy Willis

Showdown On The Fairness Doctrine

With all of the attacks on conservative talk show hosts and in the aftermath of an Air America smear on the Right, it's time to make sure that the Left cannot use the government to dictate political content on broadcast networks. A group of Republicans in the House have reached the same conclusion. They announced their intention to force a floor vote on a bill that will permanently bar any attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and make government the arbiter of political speech:

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) filed a discharge petition Wednesday to force a vote on legislation to ban the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

“The time has come to do away with the Fairness Doctrine once and for all,” the lawmaker said on the House floor. Pence’s legislation would require an act of Congress before the Fairness Doctrine, which would require broadcasters to give time to both sides on an issue, can be implemented.

A discharge petition allows a lawmaker to force an up-or-down vote in the House if it is signed by a majority of members.

“To my colleagues in Congress I respectfully say: If you oppose the Fairness Doctrine, sign the petition. If you cherish the dynamic national asset that is American talk radio, sign the petition. If you simply believe that broadcast freedom deserves an up-or-down vote on the floor of the people’s House, sign the petition,” Pence said.

Pence and his colleagues listed below understand what the Left's hysterical attack on Rush Limbaugh meant. They deliberately took his remarks out of context in order to create the notion that something had to be done to correct irresponsible political speech on broadcast radio, and they targeted the biggest name in the business to do it. No one in their right mind would believe that Rush didn't support the military or the right of troops to express their opinions on the war, but it certainly makes for a good dodge in order to panic people into giving up their right to free political speech.

We'll see how many signatures they can gather. The bill makes the choice straighforward. Those who sign the petition believe that Americans can make up their own minds about which political talk shows they want to hear, and will let the market decide who gets air time. Those who refuse to sign it want to leave open the option for top-down government control of broadcaster schedules and limitations on how much conservative or liberal political speech a broadcaster can publish, with an eye to eliminating political talk radio altogether by creating such a heavy regulatory burden that it disappears altogether.

That's the choice. Perhaps you can help your Representatives make it with a few calls to their offices.

Here's a link to the audio from the press conference today, which featured the following Representatives. The speaking order is as follows:

Congressman Mike Pence
Republican Leader John Boehner
Republican Whip Roy Blunt
Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam
Republican Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor
Congressman Greg Walden
Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling

Rep. Blunt has guest blogged at Red State on this issue.

What Free Speech Means, And What It Doesn't

For a nation birthed on the concept of free speech, we seem to have a very poor understanding of the concept. Jonah Goldberg notices this in his NRO column today, and uses the case of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia to make the point:

But here’s the thing, whether you favored or opposed the teeny dictator’s lecture: Free speech had nothing to do with it.

You have to stay on your toes, like Ahmadinejad at a urinal, to grasp this point since it’s so often confused in our public discourse: Free-speech rights aren’t violated when private institutions deny speech in their name. My free-speech rights have not been denied by the fact that for years the Democratic National Committee has refused to invite me to speak at its confabs. Nor would it be censorship if this newspaper dropped my column. Freedom of speech also includes the right not to say something.

In other words, had Columbia denied Ahmadinejad a platform, it would have been exercising freedom of speech just as much as it was when it invited him to give his prison-house philosopher spiel.

People keep muddying the central point of free speech, which is a right because of its non-confiscatory, natural state of humanity. Speaking one's mind requires no subsidy, no government grant. It is an innate, natural right springing from the central spirit of what it means to be a sapient human. It follows rationally from acknowledging that men and women have their own thoughts and values, and any government which seeks to encumber them would be tyrannical on its face.

People lose the meaning of its non-confiscatory nature. Freedom of speech does not confer upon anyone the right to be published. Nor does it impose on other citizens the duty to listen or to acknowledge the speech. Most importantly, it does not grant an immunity from criticism for the speech one gives -- because that would also constrain free speech.

Publication is another form of speech, and it carries with it the exposure to criticism that anyone assumes when they speak publicly. That's what people missed in the Ahmadinejad speech. Columbia University in essence published Ahmadinejad's speech by inviting him to speak from their dais, even if they hid their logos on the stage during his appearance. They freely associated their academic credibility with Ahmadinejad's lunatic ravings on Holocaust denial and his preference for the extinction of Israel. And they deserved the criticism they received for doing so, as well as for providing a platform for a leader of a terror-supporting state whose resources at the moment go to killing American soldiers.

The same holds true for Hofstra Law School's invitation to Lynne Stewart to speak at a forum on legal ethics. A jury convicted Stewart on five counts of providing material support to terrorism, specifically passing along messages from the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, to assassinate Hosni Mubarak and conduct other terrorist actions. Stewart remains free on bail while appealing her sentence, and she has the right to speek freely about her sense of ethics. That doesn't entitle her to have her views published by Hofstra, and their decision to provide her that platform places them in the position of endorsing her point of view, whether they agree to it or not. That's the point that my friend Scott Johnson tried to make in a shout-fest on Hannity & Colmes last night, with a panel that clearly could not grasp the distinction between free speech and the responsibilities that come with publication.

Denying Stewart a platform at Hofstra would not impede her right to free speech. Neither would disinviting Ahmadinejad from Columbia. Both have the right to speak their minds anywhere they can freely access. The fact that Columbia and Hofstra chose to associate themselves with terrorist sympathizers leaves them both open for criticism from others exercizing their own freedom to speak. That criticism does not attack free speech but celebrates it, as well as demanding some long-overdue accountability to the act of publication.

Why The NYT Ad Issue Matters

In response to the revelation that the New York Times discounted 60% off of purchase price for the MoveOn ad that attacked General David Petraeus as a traitor, some have argued that the Times can do anything it wants with its paper. These commenters and bloggers have "moved on" from the argument that MoveOn didn't get a discount at all to a contradictory position that the Times can discount whenever and to whomever they desire.

Normally, I would agree. The Times has a responsibility to its shareholders to make profitable decisions, but the shareholders need to demand accountability for leaving almost $80,000 on the table in this deal. The Times also has a First Amendment right to its political speech and to free association -- although we certainly also have the First Amendment right to criticize their speech and their associations.

However, the Times has been particularly active in demanding campaign-finance reform, especially supporting the more egregious portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Just this past July, the editorial board excoriated the Supreme Court for its rollback of limitations on issues ads:

First, campaign finance. Four years ago, a differently constituted court upheld sensible provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act designed to prevent corporations and labor unions from circumventing the ban on their spending in federal campaigns by bankrolling phony “issue ads.” These ads purport to just educate voters about a policy issue, but are really aimed at a particular candidate.

The 2003 ruling correctly found that the bogus issue ads were the functional equivalent of campaign ads and upheld the Congressional restrictions on corporate and union money. Yet the Roberts court shifted course in response to sham issue ads run on radio and TV by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life with major funding from corporations opposed to Senator Russell Feingold, the Democrat who co-authored the act.

It opened a big new loophole in time to do mischief in the 2008 elections. The exact extent of the damage is unclear. But the four dissenters were correct in warning that the court’s hazy new standard for assessing these ads is bound to invite evasion and fresh public cynicism about big money and politics.

It takes a particularly high level of chutzpah to write this, and two months later, attempt to hide behind the First Amendment while making what qualifies as an in-kind donation to MoveOn. The Times has consistently argued against the First Amendment in campaign finance reform, pushing for legislation that limits Americans from advertising their political beliefs within sight of an election. The Gray Lady screeches about how nefarious advocates hide behind "issues" to target politicians -- and yet subsidizes an ad from an advocacy group that attacks the honor of a military commander as an indirect attack on the White House.

It's at least a measure of integrity that the Times' own public editor didn't float this argument in his column today. However, anyone who believes that the Times showed no hypocrisy and bias in giving this in-kind donation to MoveOn -- a definition provided by the BCRA that the Times supports -- either indulges in hypocrisy or ignorance themselves.

If the Times wants to subsidize ads from political groups they support, then they should argue also for an end to the BCRA and the nonsense it engenders. When that happens, we will at least get a straight answer for their editorial and advertising practices, and we will still have our First Amendment rights to criticize those as well.

UC Davis Disinvites Lawrence Summers

UC Davis had invited former Harvard president Lawrence Summers to speak at a board dinner during a visit from the regents on September 19th. After his invitation to speak created a firestorm of controversy on campus, the university disinvited Summers in a process that appears to be gaining ground on University of California campuses (via The Corner):

After a group of UC Davis women faculty began circulating a petition, UC regents rescinded an invitation to Larry Summers, the controversial former president of Harvard University, to speak at a board dinner Wednesday night in Sacramento. The dinner comes during the regents' meeting at UCD next week.

Summers gained notoriety for saying that innate differences between men and women could be a reason for under-representation of women in science, math and engineering.

“The regents' dinners have always been informal, social occasions,” said UC spokesman Trey Davis. “Chairman (Richard) Blum and Dr. Summers talked yesterday, and agreed that UC would locate a different speaker. Susan Kennedy, the governor's chief of staff, has this morning graciously agreed to speak at the dinner.”

Summers also garnered criticism for a decline in tenure offers to women during his term as Harvard's president. The combination of those helped force him into resigning his position two years go. His comments on innate differences between genders continue to spark controversy and debate.

Summers may well be wrong about gender differences impacting educational aptitudes in a general or specific sense. Does that mean that Summers should get barred from addressing academics in the future? Does he need to do a Galileo and issue public recantations while muttering E pur si muove under his breath? Because as long as institutions like UC Davis continue to surrender to the dogmatists, Summer will never be heard, and his views will never get proper refutation or support in accordance with the evidence, as opposed to the passions of the day.

Shutting down debate and silencing voices is the antithesis of academic purpose, imposing a politically-correct party line rather than a true pursuit of truth. On the other hand, UCD professor Maureen Stanton, who organized the petition demanding Summers be silenced, would probably be the first to object to firing a dean for his liberal views. It's fascinating to see what happens when the other ox gets gored.

Chemerinsky And Drake To Do Beer Commercials?

If UCI has its way, Erwin Chemerinsky and Michael Drake may become the next Billy Martin and George Steinbrenner of academia. Days after firing Chemerinsky, and a few days more after hiring him, UCI has begun an effort to re-hire the legal scholar to resolve the controversy over his dismissal. Also, the Los Angeles Times discovers those who fought Chemerinsky's appointment, and it doesn't quite square with Drake's previous explanations (via Instapundit):

UC Irvine officials on Friday were attempting to broker a deal to once again hire liberal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as dean of its fledging law school, just three days after its chancellor set off a national furor by dumping him. ...

An agreement would be an extraordinary development after Chemerinsky contended this week that Drake succumbed to political pressure from conservatives and sacked him because of his outspoken liberal positions. The flap threatened to derail the 2009 opening of the law school and prompted some calls for Drake's resignation.

Also Friday, details emerged about the criticism of Chemerinsky that the university received in the days before Drake rescinded the job offer, including from California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who criticized Chemerinsky's grasp of death penalty appeals. Also, a group of prominent Orange County Republicans and Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich wanted to derail the appointment.

Drake has insisted that Chemerinsky didn't lose the dean's position because of his politics, saying that it was only because he expressed himself in a polarizing way.

Further confirmation that Drake fired Chemerinsky for his politics came from Orange County attorney Tom Malcolm, who has worked behind the scenes to repair the damage and get Chemerinsky to return to UCI. He told the LA Times that Chemerinsky has to transform himself from a "very outspoken advocate" to being a dean, strongly implying that UCI will not tolerate a dean who engages in political activity. In the same breath, he says that Chemerinsky's termination had "nothing to do with this academic freedom issue".

In other words, Malcolm says Chemerinsky will have all the academic freedom he wants, as long as he keeps his mouth shut. Huh?

The August 16th op-ed piece that some UCI defenders did play into the decision to fire Chemerinsky, but not because he broke some kind of agreement to stay silent on politics, a requirement to which Chemerinsky would certainly never agree anyway. Ronald George read the piece and saw a rather large error; Chemerinsky claimed that only Arizona supplies lawyers to death-row inmates for habeas corpus petitions. George directed that a letter be sent to the Times (they have no record of it) and George himself gave a copy to Malcolm, who passed it on to Drake.

At the same time, Mike Antonovich had organized an e-mail campaign among conservatives in Orange County to convince Drake to dump Chemerinsky. Another local player in Orange County conservative circles, Michael Schroeder, did the same thing. Schroeder took the added step of including Drake's cellphone number in his communications to harrass Drake into retreat.

Now let's compare all of this to Drake's shifting explanations. Drake claimed that some time after the contract was signed, after a nine-month search and negotiation process, that he discovered that he could not effectively "partner" with Chemerinsky. Before that, he claimed that the regents would never have approved the hire, and changed that only after the regents made it clear that they had no issues with Chemerinsky and had not heard of any controversy over the hiring. Now we find out that not only did local conservatives put significant pressure on Drake to fire Chemerinsky, the judiciary also applied what appears to be inappropriate pressure on Drake as well -- and at least some of that was directly tied to Chemerinsky's politics.

Chemerinsky got fired for his politics. Drake folded under the pressure, and has been dishonest about it almost from the first moment. Neither reflect well on UCI and especially on
its chancellor.

If UCI tells Chemerinsky that academic freedom means silence, he should throw them out of his office. Chemerinsky may or may not have been the best candidate for the job, but Drake hired him knowing full well that Chemerinsky advocates publicly for his positions, and that should have no bearing on his job after both sides signed the contract. In America, we don't fire people for their politcal views, especially after hiring them with full knowledge of their activities. Because the next university to impose silence on its staff will impose it on conservatives -- and probably the next nine after that. And that's why this is important to everyone.

Drake: I'm Just Incompetent

UC Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake defends himself in the Los Angeles Times today for his firing of Erwin Chemerinsky as the school's first dean for their new law school. He claims that he did not renege on the signed contract a week after signing it because of Chemerinsky's political views, nor did he get pressured by the UC regents, donors, or politicians. So why did he fire Chemerinsky and embroil UCI in a completely avoidable controversy?

Incompetence:

The University of California at Irvine over the last several months has conducted a nationwide search for the founding dean of our school of law. Last week, I made an offer to Duke Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, an eminent academician, legal scholar and commentator. I subsequently made the very difficult decision that Professor Chemerinsky was not the right person for the dean's position and informed him that we were rescinding our offer and continuing the recruitment process.

My decision -- and the motivation for it -- have been the subject of extensive media coverage over the last few days, much of which has been characterized by assumption, conjecture and hearsay.

Let me set the record straight. I made a management decision -- not an ideological or political one -- to rescind the offer to Professor Chemerinsky. The decision was mine and mine alone. It was not based on pressure from donors, politicians or the University of California Board of Regents. It was a culmination of discussions -- with many people over a period of time -- that convinced me that Professor Chemerinsky and I would not be able to partner effectively to build a world-class law school at UC Irvine. That is my overarching priority.

Really? So after conducting a lengthy search process and whittling the choices down to a select few legal scholars, Drake chose Professor Chemerinsky, presumably after interviewing him on at least a couple of occasions. He negotiated a contract with Chemerinsky in order to secure the proper level of compensation. They managed to agree rather quickly on terms, and both men signed the contract.

And somehow, after all of this effort together reached a successful conclusion, Drake suddenly discovered that he couldn't "partner" with Chemerinsky? Does that sound honest to anyone? At what point in the week that followed the execution of the contract did he figure this out, and why?

Just taking this at face value, it serves as an admission of incompetence. Hiring managers sometimes have to make decisions quickly when it comes to lower-level positions -- and I have plenty of experience with regretful hiring decisions. In my fifteen years managing call centers and hiring entry-level office staff, I never rescinded an offer to an applicant unless a background check or drug test failed after the decision was made.

And Dean of Law isn't exactly a walk-in application type of job. Executive hires involve talent searches, tons of money, lunches, dinners, and plenty of personal contact, a process in which I have participated in the past. They take months to get right, and all indications are that Drake searched for a long time before settling on Chemerinsky. If, after all of that effort, Drake didn't know that he couldn't "partner" with Chemerinsky until after they both signed the contract, then he's at best a complete incompetent as an executive and should be fired.

At least in terms of the regents, Drake seems to be telling the truth. Stalwart conservative and former UC regent Ward Connerly told the Washington Post that the regents couldn't have done anything about the hiring decision, and would have been extremely unlikely to even express disapproval:

Calls to several University of California regents were not returned, but Ward Connerly, architect of the state's anti-affirmative-action law and a UC regent for 12 years, said he does not believe concerns from regents could have derailed Chemerinsky's hiring. The regents "give great deference to the decisions of the chancellors and the president, whether they believe in them or not," he said.

Drake got cold feet. Something happened in that week to intimidate Drake, and he breached Chemerinsky's contract rather than defend his own hiring decision. Even if Drake's explanation in the LA Times is honest and accurate, it demonstrates his unfitness for any executive position. UCI doesn't need a law school, but it needs a lawyer -- fast.

UPDATE: Professor Victor Davis Hanson wants Chemerinsky rehired.

In response to Nauseated Don in the comments, it doesn't take a legal expert to know that when two parties sign a contract, one party can't just act as if it doesn't exist. I'm not a lawyer but I spent years as a hiring manager in call centers, as well as someone who had to deal with contracts on a regular basis. Breach of contract is not a difficult concept.

Chemerinsky obviously got fired for his political beliefs, and even commenters who disagree with me on my position here accept that. If that's OK, get prepared for firings of conservatives from campuses around the nation, and don't bitch about it when it happens; we will have validated the effort. That's even worse than not hiring someone for their political beliefs, an option that was open to Drake up to the point where he signed the contract.

UPDATE II: The selection process took nine months. It took Drake nine months to select Chemerinsky and agree on compensation, but in the week after signing the contract, he discovered that he couldn't partner with Chemerinsky. Two sources tell the LA Times that the firing was ideological (one on the record, one off).

Which Conservatives Wanted Erwin Chemerinsky Fired?

UC Irvine has touched off a firestorm, thanks to a particularly gutless move by Chancellor Michael Drake in rescinding a job offer for its brand-new law school. Well known liberal law academic Erwin Chemerinsky had accepted UCI's offer and contract to become the first dean -- but Drake told Chemerinsky that "conservatives" had hounded him into breaking the contract:

Just days after he signed a contract to become the first dean of UC Irvine's new law school, Erwin Chemerinsky was told this week that the deal was off because he was too "politically controversial."

Chemerinsky said in an interview today that UC Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake had flown to North Carolina on Tuesday and told him at a hotel near the airport that that he did not realize the extent to which there were "conservatives out to get me."

Chemerinsky, one of the nation's best known constitutional scholars and a liberal professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C., said he signed a contract last week after being offered the job Aug. 16. He said he had lined up a board of advisors for the new school, including the deans of the UC Berkeley and University of Virginia law schools and three federal judges, including Andrew Guilford, a Bush appointee from Orange County. ...

He said that "concerns" had emerged from the UC regents, which would have had to approve the appointment, Chemerinsky said. The professor said Drake told him that he thought there would have been a "bloody battle" among the regents over the appointment.

So Drake didn't have the courage to defend his hiring decision to the regents? That should be a warning signal to anyone offered a position at Irvine. Drake didn't bother to check with his masters before having Chemerinsky sign a contract -- something a lawyer could have told him would be a big, big problem.

Had Drake decided not to hire Chemerinsky because of his political views, that would have been bad enough. It's exactly what conservatives have rightly decried in academia as well as in government appointments. This, however, is even worse. UCI offered Chemerinsky a contract, which he accepted in good faith. In fact, he had even started to work for UCI in assembling an advisory council when Drake got a case of runny intestine and reneged on the contract.

A state-run school has no business firing people because of their politics. That's true whether the person is a liberal or a conservative. Conservatives should defend Chemerinsky just as they defend Janice Rogers Brown or William Pryor. Mostly, though, UCI's community should be offended that a man with as little testicular fortitude as Drake continues to run the school. His contract breaking in order to avoid defending his own hiring decision should be the last official act of Drake at UCI.

I'm not the only conservative defending Chemerinsky, either. (via Hugh Hewitt, who hosts Chemerinsky weekly on his show)

Reaping And Sowing -- In The Same Field

The mainstream media that has taken to pillorying the departing Karl Rove essentially for playing its own game now decries the natural evolution from its own outrage. A federal judge has ruled that journalists must reveal sources for an article that smeared a government bioterrorism expert and falsely reported him to be the prime suspect in the anthrax attacks -- and this courtroom should provide familiar surroundings (via Michelle Malkin):

Five reporters must reveal their government sources for stories they wrote about Steven J. Hatfill and investigators' suspicions that the former Army scientist was behind the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton is yet another blow to the news industry as it seeks to shield anonymous sources who provide critical information -- especially on the secret inner workings of government. ...

In lengthy depositions in the case, reporters have identified 100 instances when Justice or FBI sources provided them with information about the investigation of Hatfill and the techniques used to probe his possible role in anthrax-laced mailings. But the reporters have refused to name the individuals.

The decision means that five journalists -- Allan Lengel of the Washington Post; Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, both of Newsweek; Toni Locy, formerly of USA Today; and James Stewart of CBS News -- are under instruction from the court to answer specific questions about who provided them with information about the investigation's focus on Hatfill.

Does the name of the judge sound familiar to CQ readers? It should. He's the same judge who presided over the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice -- in a case based on a leak by government officials. Interestingly enough, the Washington Post report never notes the connection -- and for good reason.

When Robert Novak published Valerie Plame's identity, the media went into moral outrage mode. They screamed about political leaks coming from government officials as if they had never heard of such a thing. The New York Times took the lead in demanding a federal investigation into the matter, and coldly cut their own reporter loose after she refused to name her source for months. Time Magazine overruled their reporter and turned over the requested materials to the independent prosecutor, and national media stars like Chris Matthews ranted about the despicable nature of the leaks -- until everyone discovered that the initial leak didn't come from the White House, but from the State Department's hostile senior staffer, Richard Armitage.

Now, suddenly, the tables have turned. The media has once again offered the "chill winds" defense to an investigation of national-security leaks. Lucy Dalglish warns of "horrifying" repercussions to free speech if reporters have to reveal their leaks or if leakers get punished for speaking to the press. Reggie Walton, once the hero of the media for throwing the book at Scooter Libby, now has become their worst nightmare for essentially applying the law as strictly against their leakers as he did with Libby.

It's a bit of poetic justice, to be sure. The media called down the thunder on leaks and leakers. They perhaps should have considered the wisdom of Proverbs 11:29 -- "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." (some links via Memeorandum)

Free Speech Vs Prior Restraint

The Muslim special-interest group CAIR has attempted to intimidate the Young America's Foundation into cancelling a speaker at their conference this week. Reacting to frequent CAIR critic Robert Spencer's invitation to address their National Conservative Student Conference, CAIR's attorney demanded that the event get shut down:

You should be aware that Mr Spencer, a well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims, has a history of false and defamatory statements. Several of those statements have falsely accused CAIR of activity that would constitute a federal criminal offense.

Interestingly, the attorney (Joseph E. Sandler) never actually produces the supposedly false statements, nor indicates when or where Spencer supposedly made them. Nevertheless, Sandler demands that Spencer be silenced:

For those reasons, we demand that YAF cancel the subject session, or else take steps to ensure that false and defamatory statements are not disseminated at that session.

This seems to be the main strategy of CAIR -- to sue people into silence. Let's not forget that CAIR also supported the Flying Imams and their efforts to sue the people who complained about their suspicious behavior to airline and security personnel here at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Now they want to threaten legal action against their critics in order to intimidate them.

If Spencer has slandered CAIR or its members, then why hasn't Sandler already sued Spencer? Could it be that CAIR might have more to fear from airing these issues in court and under oath than Spencer? It certainly looks that way. This letter is the typical bluster one would expect from a frightened bully with enough scratch to hire an attorney with a laser printer.

Instead of using these tactics of intimidation, CAIR could have simply asked to have time to rebut Spencer at the YAF event. That way, they could address Spencer's supposed untruths in real time, and would have engaged young conservatives in a positive manner. A group that believes in freedom and liberty would have used their freedom of speech to enlighten the attendees, instead of attempting a prior restraint of speech that silences the normal and healthy voices of criticism in a free society.

YAF has reassured Spencer that his invitation to speak remains open. At least they understand the value of free speech.

It's For The Children!

Sometimes bipartisanship leads to bigger problems, and the Senate Commerce Committee apparently intends to prove it. Chair Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and ranking member Ted Stevens (R-AK) issued a demand for government "filtering" of the Internet -- and they want it for the children, of course (via Instapundit):

US senators today made a bipartisan call for the universal implementation of filtering and monitoring technologies on the Internet in order to protect children at the end of a Senate hearing for which civil liberties groups were not invited.

Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Vice Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) both argued that Internet was a dangerous place where parents alone will not be able to protect their children.

“While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child’s online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be fool-proof in keeping kids away from adult material," Sen. Inouye said. “In that context, we must evaluate our current efforts to combat child pornography and consider what further measures may be needed to stop the spread of such illegal material over high-speed broadband connections."

Before we get into free-speech issues, let's deconstruct Inouye's statement for a moment. Keeping kids away from adult material morphs very quickly into combating child pornography, but they aren't at all connected. Kids don't get victimized by child pornographers by surfing the web, but by being exploited in person by child pornographers. The distribution of child pornography occurs on the Internet -- but that's already illegal, and law enforcement resources have already been committed to fighting it.

If Inouye wants to strengthen the penalties and commit more resources to prosecute child porn and its distribution, that sounds good to me. It doesn't require government "filtering" to do either.

What did Ted Stevens have to say about the subject? Nothing terribly coherent:

"Given the increasingly important role of the Internet in education and commerce, it differs from other media like TV and cable because parents cannot prevent their children from using the Internet altogether," Sen. Stevens said. "The headlines continue to tell us of children who are victimized online. While the issues are difficult, I believe Congress has an important role to play to ensure that the protections available in other parts of our society find their way to the Internet."

To quote the great philosopher of our time -- the Geico Caveman -- er, what? "The protections available in other parts of our society"? Would Stevens like to explain exactly what those protections are? I'm not aware of any government filtering programs on media, except to make child porn illegal. The government does not pre-inspect Hustler, for instance, to ensure that the models are all 18 and over; they just require publishers to keep records to substantiate it on request. They do the same thing with Internet porn sites, at least those who operate within the US. Every legitimate restriction on the distribution of information and images that exists in the brick-and-mortar world already applies to the Internet.

How does the Internet differ from TV and cable in that parents can't prevent their children from using it? Parents who want to cut off Internet access at their house will find it rather easy to do. True, their children can access Internet elsewhere, but they can access television elsewhere, too, even at school.

The committee wants the FCC and the FTC to start working on methods of identifying and blocking certain methods of transmission to keep child pornography from getting distributed. Not only does that sound like a dangerous expansion of their specific missions, it sounds absurd from a technological point of view. The decentralized nature of the Internet makes this suggestion a never-ending game of "duck-duck-goose", as transmissions will adapt to government interference -- as proven in China, Iran, and a host of other dictatorships.

We don't need a nanny state deciding what to block for our own good. Track child porn and prosecute everyone involved, but don't use that as an excuse to start filtering access to the Internet.

Ted Kennedy And The Democrats Hate Free Speech

Once again, Minnesota's Senator Norm Coleman attempted to ensure that government would not control the content of political speech -- and once again the Democrats ensured that they could impose it. Ted Kennedy himself blocked Coleman's amendment with a point of order, and the Democrats torpedoed it in a party-line vote:

Senate Democrats last night beat back a Republican attempt to attach an anti-Fairness Doctrine bill as an amendment to education legislation.

The doctrine, a former requirement that broadcasters present opposing points of view on political issues, was scrapped in 1987 by the Federal Communications Commission, which said the policy restricted journalistic freedom. The bill by Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican, would prevent the FCC from reinstating the doctrine.

"We live in an age of satellite radio, of broadband, of blogs, of Internet, of cable TV, of broadcast TV. There is no limitation on the ability of anyone from any political persuasion to get their ideas set forth," Mr. Coleman argued in support of the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007. "The public in the end will choose what to listen to."

By a vote of 49-48, senators voted not to consider Mr. Coleman's amendment after Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, raised a point of order. Senate rules require 60 votes to waive a point of order.

Kennedy pronounced Coleman's amendment on the education bill as "insulting", claiming that it delayed passage of his education bill. Coleman responded tartly by telling Kennedy that education can only be enhanced by "unfettered access to information." Perhaps it would have been better to remind Kennedy that the federal government has less business regulating political speech than it does in education.

It's become clear that the Democrats want top-down government control over political speech in this country. More than that, they want a mechanism that will kill talk radio -- because they can't compete in that arena. They want to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine so that broadcasters get intimidated into changing formats to protect their licenses. With the FD back in business, any crank can file complaints at will and force the broadcasters to conduct minute-by-minute audits of their broadcasts, attempting to determine how much time went to one position versus another.

Instead of going through that burdensome and expensive accounting, broadcasters will dump political talk for sports, or perhaps the inane "community" talk that almost always turns covertly political. The AM band will fade -- again -- and the broadcast industry will contract -- again. And all because the Democrats believe that Americans are so stupid that they can't find competing information on their own.

Evan Bayh was the only Democrat to support free political speech in this vote. Every Republican in the Senate voted to support free speech. That should inform voters for the 2008 campaign. Without free political speech, all else is lost.

A Colloquy On The Fairness Doctrine

The debate over the Fairness Doctrine continued in the Senate today, as Dick Durbin blocked Norm Coleman from offering an amendment that would forbid content control in political speech on the airwaves. Coleman and Durbin then got into a series of volleys on the nature of speech and broadcast licensing, which capsulizes the differing approaches to freedom between the two parties:

Mr. Durbin: I'm sorry to interrupt you but I really wish that through the commerce committee or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into this question. But the senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the senator's response if the marketplace fails to provide? What is the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? Since the people who are seeking the licenses are using America's airwaves, does the government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a despair balanced approach to the --a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?

Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I’ll respond to the final question here. Very clear disagreement here. The government does not -- does not -- have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That's what the first amendment is about. It's exactly what the first amendment is about. Government's not supposed to be regulating content. And in a time in 1949 when you had three network TV stations, basically, when had you limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that, in fact, government needs to step in and ensure balance. But now we're in 2007. We're at a time where we've got 20,000, you know, opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information. I think it would be -- I -- I can't even conceive -- I can't even conceive that the market could not provide opportunities for differing positions because it does. And in the end -- in the end, consumers also have a right based on the market to make choices. And so if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other, that's ok okay. And I think it's very dangerous, I say to my -- my friend from Illinois, I think it's very dangerous for government to be in the position of deciding what's fair and balanced. Because as we see on the floor of the senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, learned -- hopefully learned individuals who've the great humble opportunity to serve in the US Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced. And so the reason I think we have a First Amendment is that we get government out of -- out of the -- the measuring, controlling, dictating, regulating content and that's my concern. ...

John Kennedy stated, "we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." Mr. President, I’m not afraid of of -- of the people. I'm not afraid of the people having access to the in information, ideas that they want to have access to. But I am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content. We have a first amendment. That's the underpinning, the foundation of all the other amendments. The fairness doctrine flies in the face of that. It was rejected. It was rejected in 1987. The idea of bringing it back today is a very, very bad idea. This amendment specifically includes the Armed forces network. Our folks are out there on the front line fighting. They should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn't be thinking that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

The effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine is entirely about fear. Durbin and his associates are afraid that they have lost the debate, and they want to shut down the forum rather than acknowledge it. Either that, or Durbin and Barbara Boxer and anyone else who wants the government to dictate the content of political speech think you're too stupid to find differing points of view.

The Fairness Doctrine never made any sense at any time, but today's communications market make it especially inappropriate. We have millions of Americans debating issues on the Internet at places like Captain's Quarters. News sources from around the world can be accessed within seconds (or minutes, if you're stuck on dial-up). Talk radio occupies a small niche in a cornucopia of information sources.

Anyone who claims that Americans can't access all sides on an issue is either being deliberately disingenuous or is hopelessly obtuse. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which applies to Dick Durbin. In the meantime, kudos to Norm Coleman for staying on top of this assault on free political speech.

UPDATE: Here's the NRSC site opposing the Fairness Doctrine, called Stop Liberal Censorship. Be sure to keep up with FD news and information at that site -- and a big welcome to Instapundit readers.

Coleman, Thune To Block Fairness Doctrine In Senate

Yesterday, Mike Pence won bipartisan approval for his amendment blocking the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. That amendment is attached to the appropriation for the agency, which requires a companion amendment in the Senate. Just a few moments ago, Senators Norm Coleman and John Thune announced that they have proposed an identical amendment in the Senate:

In an effort to prevent Democrats from suppressing the right to free speech for talk radio and other broadcasters, Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Thune (R-SD) today introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (S.1748). The bill would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, which would require the government to monitor political views and decide what constitutes fair political discourse. Identical legislation was also introduced by Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) in the House of the Representatives.

“At its core, this is about the right to free speech. Our founders put the first amendment first for a reason. It protects all Americans’ right to free speech, regardless of political affiliation or views. The Democrats’ attempt to regulate and stifle ideas is a grave threat our liberties,” said Senator Coleman. “Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has flourished due to free market ideas. We mustn’t put the government in control over the political views expressed on the public airwaves. I applaud Congressman Pence for being a leader on this issue. Senators DeMint, Thune and I will continue working with our colleagues in the Senate to pass this critical legislation.”

“Here they go again. Democrats showed in the immigration debate they will once again try resurrect the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine', which is nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the free speech of conservative Americans. If liberals had their way, this unfair doctrine would give the heavy hand of government control over talk radio. We must act now to preserve all American's first amendment rights,” said Senator DeMint.

Power Line noted today that Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein have inadvertently given the Republicans an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves with their base after the immigration debacle. Attacking talk radio and threatening regulation of political content doesn't just resonate with conservatives, but with everyone concerned about government meddling with political speech. The GOP sees the opportunity to champion free speech while painting the Democrats as afraid and unable to respond to debate.

If Harry Reid and the Senate Democratic Caucus have an ounce of sense, they'll take a lesson from Jose Serrano and allow the amendment to prevail.