We’ve ordered one fresh copy of “Profiles in Courage” for U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill. Her political analysis regarding the Gorsuch confirmation process is spot-on. She understands the larger war within which the Gorsuch nomination is a small (yes, small) battle. No doubt Senator McCaskill is capable of understanding and articulating the key principal from the Democrats’ perspective. But in the weakest tradition of partisanship, she sacrificed the major principles for the minor one. Senator McCaskill succumbs to partisanship.
She is a willing co-conspirator in the Democrats’ theft of the advise and consent responsibility from a long history of bipartisan respect. She, and most Senate Democrats, act as if political warfare is and should be the norm. We won’t review the history of Supreme Court nominations, other than to note that this is the first (and only) time in American history that a nominee is the victim of a solely partisan filibuster. Shame, shame, shame.
Government mandated censorship of speech in the United States is not dead yet. Not even in the 21st century. This time, a remarkable attack on free speech comes from Democratic New York Assemblyman David Weprin. Mr. Weprin introduced a bill in the New York State Assembly imaginatively crafted as the “Right to be Forgotten Act.” This one is too good to be true. We might all wish for a “right to be forgotten.” But let’s start right here.
David Weprin
Here’s what Assemblyman Weprin would command:
Within 30 days after a request from “an individual”:
[A]ll search engines, indexers, publishers and any other persons or entities that make available on or though the internet . . . information about the requester, shall remove information, articles, identifying information and other content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is “inaccurate”, “irrelevant”, “inadequate” or excessive” . . .
It’s Hard to Craft Such Legislation – But He’s Done It
You might wonder what information qualifies as “inaccurate,” “irrelevant”, “inadequate,” or “excessive?” Wonder no more. Assemblyman Weprin dictates that these terms mean:
[C]ontent which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse . . .
If that’s not clear enough in this remarkable attack on free speech, perhaps a few examples from the Assemblyman will clarify:
. . . especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information, article or other content is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest. . .
Illustrating the thoroughness of his approach, Assemblyman Weprin, of course, excepted:
[C]ontent related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is or significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.
Financial penalties, including damages, apply to offenders who do not timely remove the referenced information.
A Lesson – How To Write Vague Statutes
Make no mistake, this is a full frontal attack on free speech. This bill, if enacted, crafts the vaguest of tests to prohibit speech whenever the government decides that a certain subject involving an “individual” should not be discussed. Sure, the strawman of an “individual” is used to impose the “forgotten” standards, but that’s an easy one. The “standards” listed in this monstrosity are, of course, no standards at all. They are vague and unenforceable. They would never withstand the severe scrutiny mandated by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment.
How is “relevancy” decided? What does “excessive” mean? By what measure is information determined as “inaccurate?” This is all so laughable except for the fact that it is actually contained in proposed legislation. By a Democrat, no less.
A Remarkable Attack on Free Speech – What Happened to Liberalism?
The purveyors of liberalism promote and protect free speech, don’t they? Just consider the many myriads of speech that this Democrat eliminates, as if they never occurred. For one, upon request all articles of historical interest would have to be removed if they are “no longer material to current public debate.” His censorship net ensnares books, scholarly works, newspapers, and more. It prohibits maintaining debates about our politicians, once the subject matters of the debates become stale. Perhaps the Assemblymen should consider distributing a little free BleachBit for anyone who ever published a word on the internet.
Assemblyman Weprin is surely a devoted student of the Sedition Act of 1797. Remember that noble attempt to squelch speech. It made criminal any oral or written speech that was “false, scandalous and malicious” against the government, the President and Congressmen. Mr. Weprin has outdone the Fifth Congress with his new remarkable attack on free speech.
So we should wipe our memory banks clean, is that right Assemblyman Weprin? Cultural amnesia, is that what you want? Or is it mass dementia that you prefer? Perhaps you should just mandate that. This “Right to be Forgotten” act should, itself, be forgotten. And quickly.
After another 30 days or so we will have to remove this article.
So what’s in the Republican healthcare bill? It’s time for the Washington hypocrites to take another victory lap. None other than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gets the spotlight on this one. And she didn’t disappoint. If you need another example of why Americans hold their political parties in contempt, then look no further than the leadership provided by Ms. Pelosi. We guess they think we are all fools. Or will simply march behind their pied pipes to whatever tunes they choose to play.
Trump, Russia and the Democrats. A 2017 Dreyfus affair, but without any espionage. A “scandal” looking for an act. The cause? Childish and churlish behavior from a President and Senators and Congressmen. In one corner tweets the petulant president. He agitates and provokes with no discernible or conceivable advantage to the interests of our country or its people. A president who would do himself a world of good to study the life of George Washington. There was a man revered and respected by friend and foe alike because he lived and breathed honor and virtue. But not this President, version 45.
And in the other corner a sanctimonious group of opposers who fire at every decoy and launch aimless attack waves. They’ve formed a phalanx to battle every twitch. They shrill for resignations and special prosecutors but come to the public’s court with nary a scintilla of evidence or basis in fact. They too care not for the deep wounds they inflict on the country, harms they will never appreciate so long as it all furthers their selfish interests. Oh, they plead that they do it for us. Balderdash!
