Comments on: “Troubling signals on free speech”

By: GregS

GregS — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:08:19 +0000

I don’t put much importance on how Hillary Clinton interprets the meaning of this. Firstly, because statements of intent by politicians doesn’t control how the courts interpret and enforce laws and treaties, and secondly because Mrs. Clinton is not the president and seems to be a relatively powerless figure in the Obama administration. Normally the Secretary of State is one of the most powerful members of the cabinet, but Obama seems to be using Clinton mainly as window dressing, so I don’t really regard what she says as reflecting what the Obama administration thinks or plans on doing.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:09:29 +0000

Sorry about the blown link: Try this.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:07:52 +0000

For what it’s worth, the Administration–at least through the State Department–rolled back on that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603218.htmlThe Washington Post reports.

Clinton did note that anti-blasphemy laws would restrict free speech.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:58:24 +0000

With their attacks on Fox News, the Obama administration appears to be against freedom of the press. With their support for this legislation, they now appear to be against free speech. Maybe they should just repeal that pesky First Amendment and be done with it. It is so much easier to rule when the opposition is silenced.

By: waggy

waggy — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:55:32 +0000

does this suprise anyone? after he atttempted to censor Fox news?

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:33:32 +0000

I wonder if we have a strong enough judiciary to oppose this? I think more than a few politicians would see the Obama administration’s position to be very appealing and reasonable. Yet, such positions are designed to make it easy to enforce and require little actual thought or discernment on the part of the regulator.