Free Speech

"Come out to vote on November 6. " "Before you come to vote make sure you pay your parking tickets, motor vehicle tickets, overdue rent, and most important any warrants. " That's the text of a flier distributed in African-American and Hispanic communities the weekend before Election Day in 2002 when Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. ran for governor against Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. November 6 would be too late to vote; it was a Wednesday. Failure to pay the rent or parking or motor vehicle tickets is not a barrier to voting; neither is an outstanding warrant.

State Del. Pat McDonough's news release alleging that "black youth mobs terrorize" downtown Baltimore has certainly set off a firestorm of debate. But what about the nature of that discussion, particularly as it relates to race? Without an inclusive, candid and wide-ranging conversation about race, such discussions tend to inflame rather than enlighten. And instead of getting smarter as a community about our feelings on race, we can get more confused and polarized. One thing that has bothered me for several days is the way that various parts of the community tried to silence McDonough in the immediate wake of his Wednesday news release.

More than anything else, the debacle regarding Westboro Baptist proves how once-powerless people can steer the media to convey their message. Through the prism of modern media we share both very enriching, positive story lines (the Chilean miners) and negative, satanic campaigns (Westboro Baptist Church). While we may detest the way some choose to manipulate media to spread their messages to the masses, we still hold freedom of speech to be one of the most fundamental and necessary building blocks of our great society.

Frankness is his charm Kevin Baxter Los Angeles Times Should Ozzie Guillen be punished for speaking his mind? No, not if the Marlins believe in free speech. However, South Florida has only a tenuous relationship with free speech — especially regarding Cuba. And Guillen, a former Marlins coach who has long maintained a home in South Florida, certainly knows that. Guillen's comments put the team in a tough spot at a time when it was opening the doors to a new $515 million home in the heart of Miami's Little Havana, the most rabidly anti-Castro piece of real estate on Earth.

On weekday mornings, I'll post the most controversial, shocking and (of course) ridiculous stories for your reading pleasure. That way, when you walk into work, you'll be the master of witty conversation. National  • A crackdown on free speech: China imprisons writers, bloggers critical of government,  including country's most famous artis t. (Washington Post)   • Free speech run amok: Koran-burning pastor feels  no responsibility for deaths in Afghanistan . (ABC News)

State Del. Jon Cardin's recent op-ed ( "Force greater disclosure in Maryland," Dec. 24) regarding campaign finance left the unfounded impression that employers have a disproportionate voice in deciding elections and that the General Assembly must act to address this perceived threat. Unfortunately, there was little data provided, other than one Congressional election, and that did not support his assertion. Of the "nearly $4 million" in spending by outside groups in Maryland's 1st Congressional District race, over 60 percent of the money came from the Congressional campaign committees of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Joe Pettit argues wrongly, I think, in characterizing Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller's argument for traditional marriage as simple free speech ( "Rodricks is wrong on separation of church and state," Jan. 28). Mr. Miller reportedly said he supports a traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman because it was "blessed by God. " If that had been simply a statement of personal sentiment, it would indeed be constitutionally protected religious expression, but if it was offered by a legislator as a rationale for legislative action, it represents an attempt to impose one religious outlook on all the people of Maryland, which is a constitutionally prohibited establishment.

The arrest of a man selling paintings at Baltimore's Inner Harbor has renewed debate over the confusing rules governing free speech along the waterfront promenade - an issue that already is the focus of an eight-year-old federal lawsuit. City officials had been nearing a settlement in the lawsuit filed in 2003 by the American Civil Liberties Union, which contended that restrictions governing protests along the harbor are too restrictive. But those involved in the negotiations warn that Sunday's arrest of artist Mark Chase could complicate discussions - especially if he chooses to sue the city.

It's time for the Maryland State Police and the Attorney General's Office to stop wasting time, back off and settle with anti-abortion protesters who were arrested in the summer of 2008 in Harford County. Yes, the protesters were mostly from out of town. Yes, the posters they were displaying to traffic on Route 24 were graphic and unpleasant. And they probably were looking to maximize their exposure and their arrest probably did more to help publicize their cause than the initial demonstration.

The editorial about the Westboro Baptist Church's protest at a soldier's funeral ("Hateful, but not illegal," Oct. 7) entirely misses the point. Of course the speech is hateful. Of course it is not illegal. It seems to me that this is not so much a free speech case as it is a gate crashing case. People holding a funeral have their own rights: freedom of assembly, freedom of association, privacy. What is more private and personal than a funeral? And there is the issue of public order.

I find Sy Steinberg's letter to the editor ("Protesters rewarded for disruptive behavior," March 29) about the settlement given abortion protesters to be very disturbing. Mr. Steinberg writes that "the protesters are inciting the public, who are entitled to be free of a bunch of grotesque signs. " This statement implies that we, the public, have a right to be free of free speech. That is a very dangerous attitude and our right to free speech should be cherished whether or not we agree with the speaker.

The article "Law, order, free speech" (March 25) prompts this response: What is distressing to this reader is that a group of religious fanatics who oppose abortion are awarded (by a federal Judge) a "settlement" of $385,000 for their despicable behavior. Admittedly, the police behaved badly, but what are they to do when they become frustrated by the outrageous action of so-called peaceful protesters waving intimidating signs that infringe upon the rights of citizens merely driving along a heavily traveled highway?

In response to the article about the Defend Life protesters and their signs (""Law, order, free speech," March 25), I can't believe the reaction of the people who are "victims" of having to look at such horrible images. Did people say that about the images we saw during the Vietnam war? Didn't that help to bring the war to an end? What about images of the starving children and refugees in Africa and Haiti? How do you think the world is able to respond to those kinds of crisis if they don't see the truth?

Pat Buchanan might have seen the end of the line coming at MSNBCwhen, last month, network president Phil Griffin commented on his latest book, "Suicide of a Superpower," by saying, "I don't think the ideas that [Buchanan] put forth are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC. " When Mr. Buchanan was let go last week after 10 years as a commentator on the network, no one was surprised. I don't agree with some of Mr. Buchanan's ideas, especially regarding Jews, his questioning of whether World War II had to happen or whether the United States should be involved militarily in the Middle East, but he has every right to his ideas, as we all have the right to our own. It's called free speech.

A spray-paint artist arrested last year was found not guilty Friday of peddling without a permit at Baltimore's Inner Harbor, a ruling that left the defendant without an opportunity to argue the free-speech issues he says are at the heart of the case. District Judge George M. Lipman said prosecutors failed to prove their allegations because police officers never saw Mark Chase sell his paintings. In effect, the judge ruled the officers arrested the artist too soon, while he was setting up and before he had made a sale.

"One of the worries we have, obviously, in the next campaign is that there are so many of these so-called super PACs, these independent expenditures that are gonna be out there, there is gonna be just a lot of money floating around and I guarantee a bunch of it's gonna be negative. " -- President Barack Obama, in an interview on Super Bowl Sunday. "President Barack Obama -- in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder -- has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC ... " -- from a story on Politico the next day. We've seen this movie before.

I was mildly surprised, to say the least, to read that the Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 that the president and his staff have the right to remove people from public speeches on the basis of their bumper stickers ("Court rebuffs 2 ousted from '05 Bush speech," Oct. 13). Upon discovering that a woman and her friend had come to the speech in a car with a bumper sticker reading "No Blood for Oil," officials ejected them from the event, despite their possession of paid tickets. The Secret Service has admitted that this was the sole reason, and thus we are given to believe that there is nothing to suggest these women had intentions to do anything disruptive or even mildly distracting, which I can only assume is the rationale for their removal.

It's probably fair to say that if school authorities in Juneau, Alaska, had kept cooler heads, the odd case of a high school student who was suspended for holding an irreverent banner on a public sidewalk might not have developed into a major free speech case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In oral argument Monday, some of the justices raised troubling questions suggesting a willingness to narrow student free speech rights. This should not be a hard case that makes bad law. In 2002, Joseph Frederick, an 18-year-old senior, and other students at Juneau-Douglas High School had been excused from class to watch the Olympic torch relay as it moved through the city.

A defense lawyer asked a Baltimore judge Monday to throw out election fraud charges against veteran political consultant Julius Henson, arguing that Henson was exercising his right to free speech when he composed a misleading Election Day robo-call. Defense lawyer Edward Smith Jr. told the court he did not dispute the facts in the prosecutors' case against his client. "Mr. Henson wrote the text of the call," he said. Smith argued, however, that Henson had a legal right to create the call - which prosecutors contend violated state law by using false information to try to supress the black vote.

It has been two years since the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and we are only now just beginning to see how its overturning of a century of campaign finance law is distorting the electoral process. Rather than acting truly independently of campaigns, as the majority of justices envisioned, these entities exclusively act on behalf of individual candidates - and are typically run by former aides. Rather than encouraging the universal right of free speech, the ruling has had the effect of providing a megaphone for the rich to drown out all other voices.