Journalism First Amendment Speech

By: madelineskiles

More:

Journalism First Amendment Speech - Video

Americas system of military honors is vulnerable to fraud, says Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Samuel Alito, who was honored at the 2014 Congressional Medal of Honor Society Awards gala in Knoxville, Tenn. on Saturday, spoke with regret about the legal fallout from a recent First Amendment case over the right to lie about being a war hero.

I fervently wish that we find a way, that Congress will find a way to protect the integrity of our countrys system of military honors, Justice Alito said, making a comparison to laws cracking down on counterfeit luxury goods. If there is no First Amendment right to buy a fake Rolex, why should there be a First Amendment right to wear a fake Medal of Honor? he said at the ceremony.

Justice Alito was one of three dissenting votes in a 2012 Supreme Court free-speech ruling striking down a law that made it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded military medals.

The high-court declared unconstitutional the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 statute Congress passed to protect the reputation and meaning of military honors.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said: Permitting the government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable.

In response, Congress last year passed a new Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to knowingly profit from lying about receiving military medals and decorations.

Justice Alito, in his weekend remarks, said he couldnt comment specifically on the new statute.

See the original post:

Justice Alito Urges Congress to Protect Nations Military Honors System

Flex Your Rights! Cop Block, ID Refusal. Beavercreek OH.
Cops Screwing 10 of us around wasting our time because they don #39;t agree with the first amendment right to canvass or go door to door to exercising our 1st amendment rights . They made up something...

By: M Mathieu

Go here to read the rest:

Flex Your Rights! Cop Block, ID Refusal. Beavercreek OH. - Video

OK NAACP asks for AG investigation on OKC Officer OK NAACP asks for AG investigation on OKC Officer

Updated: Sunday, September 14 2014 7:19 AM EDT2014-09-14 11:19:45 GMT

The president of the Oklahoma NAACP wants the U.S. attorney general to open a hate crimes and civil rights investigation into alleged sexual assaults on black women by an Oklahoma City police officer.

The president of the Oklahoma NAACP wants the U.S. attorney general to open a hate crimes and civil rights investigation into alleged sexual assaults on black women by an Oklahoma City police officer.

Updated: Sunday, September 14 2014 7:17 AM EDT2014-09-14 11:17:59 GMT

Oklahoma's broadcast airwaves are practically void of political advertising just seven weeks before Oklahomans make their choices for the U.S. Senate, Congress, governor and other offices in the November 4th general election.

Oklahoma's broadcast airwaves are practically void of political advertising just seven weeks before Oklahomans make their choices for the U.S. Senate, Congress, governor and other offices in the November 4th general election.

Updated: Sunday, September 14 2014 7:16 AM EDT2014-09-14 11:16:26 GMT

An Amber Alert issued out of Tulsa late Saturday night was canceled just hours later after police determined the report was falsely reported.

An Amber Alert issued out of Tulsa late Saturday night was canceled just hours later after police determined the report was falsely reported.

The rest is here:

Students invited to enter First Amendment contest

Alexander on Senate Democrats effort to change First Amendment and Limit Free Speech
U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander today spoke on the Senate Floor on his opposition to Senate Democrats #39; effort to change the U.S. Constitution to give politician...

By: lamaralexander

Read more:

Alexander on Senate Democrats effort to change First Amendment and Limit Free Speech - Video

Cornyn: Push to Gut First Amendment Reflects Senate Democrats Misplaced Priorities

By: Senator John Cornyn

Read more from the original source:

Cornyn: Push to Gut First Amendment Reflects Senate Democrats Misplaced Priorities - Video

A Wholesale Effort to Repeal the First Amendment
Senator Lee defends freedom of speech on the Senate Floor.

By: senatormikelee

Read more from the original source:

A Wholesale Effort to Repeal the First Amendment - Video

YOUR first amendment rights!
A personal summation of our first amendment rights.

By: Irrelevant_q

Go here to read the rest:

YOUR first amendment rights! - Video

Vite NO to rescind the first amendment.
Journalism 4th hour 9-11-14.

By: Madeline Skiles

Original post:

Vite NO to rescind the first amendment. - Video

New Hampshires Constitution Day essay contest is right around the corner, and some Nashua students are taking on the competition as a part of their social studies classes. The contest is hosted by The Telegraph and six other newspapers and the states court system. Essay topics put contemporary issues within a constitutional context. This years this question asks to students address the conflicts between cyberbullying and First Amendment rights.

Fairgrounds Middle School has been home to the two previous grades 5-8 statewide essay winners, Suhaas Katikaneni in 2013 and Benjamin Swain in 2012. Fairgrounds incorporats the contest into its fall curriculum. ... Subscribe or log in to read more

New Hampshires Constitution Day essay contest is right around the corner, and some Nashua students are taking on the competition as a part of their social studies classes. The contest is hosted by The Telegraph and six other newspapers and the states court system. Essay topics put contemporary issues within a constitutional context. This years this question asks to students address the conflicts between cyberbullying and First Amendment rights.

Fairgrounds Middle School has been home to the two previous grades 5-8 statewide essay winners, Suhaas Katikaneni in 2013 and Benjamin Swain in 2012. Fairgrounds incorporats the contest into its fall curriculum.

The three levels in the middle school, all the social studies teachers, are all participating, said Fairgrounds teacher Ralph Sommese. Sommese is an eighth grade social studies teacher and social studies curriculum liaison for Fairgrounds Middle School to the district.

Sommese said student interest in the contest varies depending on student age and the essay topic.

I know the sixth graders really get into it. The eighth graders are this year because of the topic theyre really interested, he said. In preparing the kids, we take them to the library to do research. I go over Supreme Court cases related to the idea of First Amendment freedom of speech topics. We also go into setting up the essay itself, he said.

Although Sommese said cyberbullying wasnt specifically a problem at the school as far as he knew, staff discusses bullying in general with students. On our team in eighth grade we do a character education piece that deals with bullying. We have speakers come in for it, he said.

Students interested in the contest can submit essays to Constitution Day contest, attn: Phil Kincade, Nashua Telegraph, 17 Executive Drive, Hudson, NH 03051. The deadline for entries this year is October 6. After that, each newspaper will select one local winner from grades 5-8 and one winner from grades 9-12. From the local winners, the state Supreme Court will select one statewide winner from each group. Local and state winners are invited to the Supreme Court, and state winners are also invited to the annual First Amendment Awards presented by the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications of Manchester.

This years essay prompt:

View post:

Students study First Amendment for Constitution Day essay contest

Since Barry Goldwater, in accepting the Republicans 1964 presidential nomination, said, Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Democrats have been decrying Republican extremism. Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in U.S. politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitutions architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done: Amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political classs convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it more than 200 years ago, says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats amendment says: Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections, and may prohibit corporations including nonprofit issue-advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money to influence elections, which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed reasonable will surely serve incumbents interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this improvement of James Madisons First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendments most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That, by aiming to equalize the political influence of people and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision, joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a dangerous intrusion on free speech. And that no Fortune 100 corporation appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.

There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification. The mere proposing of it, however, has usefully revealed the senators who are eager to regulate speech about themselves:

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November. But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities real extremists.

See more here:

Will: George Will: Senate Democrats extremism on display

E.V.P. - Can we make a sound?
This audio clip was recorded around the year 2009 in a home in California (old gold mining town). It was recorded with a computer as I did not have a handheld voice recorder at the time. I...

By: I Invoke My First Amendment Rights

Read this article:

E.V.P. - Can we make a sound? - Video

CJ #39;s First Amendment Project

By: Sarah Richards

See more here:

CJ's First Amendment Project - Video

D.T. Hour Kansas was RIGHT?
Well we #39;ll be talking about the attempt by 49 democrats to appeal the first amendment. Also we might even get to see Kansas Hillbilly prepper.

By: GreenDragon Tavern Chats

See the rest here:

D.T. Hour Kansas was RIGHT? - Video

The point of this "improvement" of James Madison's First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Shutterstock.com

Enlarge photo

WASHINGTON Since Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans' 1964 presidential nomination, said "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," Democrats have been decrying Republican "extremism." Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitution's architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class's convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as "relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections." But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats' amendment says: "Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections," and may "prohibit" corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money "to influence elections," which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed "reasonable" will surely serve incumbents' interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this "improvement" of James Madison's First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendment's most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. The one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a "dangerous intrusion on free speech." And that no Fortune 100 corporation "appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles."

The rest is here:

Extremism in defense of re-election

SINCE Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans 1964 presidential nomination, said extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Democrats have been decrying Republican extremism. Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitutions architecture of ordered liberty is rare. Last week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats amendment says: Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections, and may prohibit corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money to influence elections, which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed reasonable will surely serve incumbents interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this improvement of James Madisons First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendments most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a dangerous intrusion on free speech. And that no Fortune 100 corporation appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.

There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification. The mere proposing of it, however, has usefully revealed the senators who are eager to regulate speech about themselves:

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November. But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities real extremists.

Go here to see the original:

George Will Eviscerating the 1st Amendment is extremism

Published: Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 3:15 a.m. Last Modified: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 3:22 p.m.

Since Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans' 1964 presidential nomination, said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," Democrats have been decrying Republican "extremism."

Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitution's architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class' convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it 223 years ago, states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as "relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections." But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech.

The Democrats' amendment states: "Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections," and may "prohibit" corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money "to influence elections," which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits would be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed "reasonable" would surely serve incumbents' interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this "improvement" of James Madison's First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It stated only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendment's most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a "dangerous intrusion on free speech." And that no Fortune 100 corporation "appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles."

See the rest here:

Will: Group of senators tries to 'improve' First Amendment

She said she came from another country where she had her own culture and own religion, but because of America's First Amendment, she could practice her religion here freely.

This was the sentiment expressed by a student in my First Amendment-related course, The Media: Freedom and Power.

For nearly the past two decades, the first oral presentation assignment has been for students to recite the First Amendment and briefly describe what it means to them. But for some reason her words particularly resonated amid the tremors of the Islamic group ISIS in the Middle East.

ISIS. This one name we had not heard of a year ago now conjures images of unmerciful, cruel brutality. Clad in black, they resemble Nazis rolling their way through Europe in World War II, except ISIS is rolling through Iraq delivering on its promise of death to those who don't renounce their religions and convert to theirs.

Seriously? Who does that in this day and age?

The notion of someone being threatened with death for not believing in the religion of another is something just so out of the realm of our reality in America. While we are not a perfect nation, the idea of being killed for one's religious beliefs is not one of our daily worries.

Now, on the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on America, many Americans once again have the threat of a new group on our collective minds. It is brought more to the fore with the beheadings of American journalists Steve Sotloff and James Foley.

Granted, ISIS has been beheading non-Americans for some time as it campaigned through Iraq and Syria. It has also posted videos of mass executions of captured soldiers and civilians. As it happens so often, it is when the victims are like us in this case Americans and for those in journalism, journalists that the brutality takes on a chillier chill of ice that glazes the soul.

I had purposely avoided seeing the videos depicting the beheadings of Sotloff and Foley. When writing this piece, however, I decided to take a look to see just how horrible the act was. But I could not find it. YouTube pulled the actual depictions of the beheadings. I looked for some time and still did not find it.

I suppose I could have kept looking and I might have found it somewhere on the Internet, but it was somewhat of a relief not to have to brace myself for what was done to them.

Read more:

Do We Want To See Beheading Videos Banned?

Alex Jones Show: Monday (9-8-14) Lew Rockwell
Alex breaks down recent attacks on the First Amendment and the rising hostility between NATO and Russia on this Monday, September 8 edition of the Alex Jones Show. Two Russian strategic bombers...

By: ConspiracyScope

Continue reading here:

Alex Jones Show: Monday (9-8-14) Lew Rockwell - Video

Jeanne Shaheen wants you to shut up already. She believes passionately that the First Amendment is too broad. It has to be rewritten to give government the authority to limit the speech of citizens.

Shaheen has promoted this view for years, and on Monday the bill she co-sponsored to amend the Constitution to restrict citizen speech came up for a procedural Senate vote. The American people lose when corporations and special interests can spend limitless dollars trying to sway public opinion and inject themselves in our democratic election process, and we have to take action on the secret money that is growing increasingly prevalent in campaigns, she said

Corporations and special interests, eh? If restricting corporations is the goal, then why does the constitutional amendment that she co-sponsored say, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections?

The phrase candidates and others means you, not corporations and special interests.

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Shaheen wants to make a law to do exactly that. But she cannot, because of the First Amendment. So she wants to amend it to give her the power to limit your ability to speak about politics, which means about her. New Hampshire, speak out against this while you still can.

Read more:

Shaheen vs. free speech She wants to silence you