Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss Twitter’s decision to sensor tweets, North Dakota’s oil boom and the challenges their rapidly growing economy faces.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Twitter faces accusations of censorship; users plan Saturday boycott
Reporters Without Borders urges Twitter to reverse its decision to censor tweets
North Dakota Oil Boom Brings Blight With Growth as Costs Soar

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

This past weekend marked the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United.  Protesters, dubbed Occupy the Courts, gathered at the Court to voice their disapproval of the decision:

As Institute for Justice campaign finance expert Paul Sherman explains in the video above:

The irony of those protests is that you had groups of people getting together to speak out against a Supreme Court decision that protected the right of people to get together and speak out.

Indeed, people should not lose their right to free speech simply by exercising their right to freely associate.   And when people group together—be it on the steps of a courthouse, in the form of a trade union or as a corporation—they don’t lose their freedom to speak out.

Occupy the Courts protesters also mistakenly believed that the Citizens United ruling held that “money is speech.”  In fact, the Court never said that.  Rather, it ruled correctly that money facilitates speech.  And if the government has the power to control how much money you can spend speaking, then it effectively can control your speech.

Importantly, the law in question in the Citizens United case empowered the government to fine and even imprison ordinary people for engaging in certain types of speech.   The government argued in court that it had the power to ban videos and books.  I don’t believe that many Americans, including the Occupy the Courts protesters, think the government should be in the business of banning books.

(more…)

We live in a democratic society, and that means that we can put certain issues and people to a vote and let the majority rule. However, there are certain rights that no majority percentage can vote away: the right to worship, the right to speedy trial, and the right to speak and express oneself freely are some examples. However, residents of the city of Los Angeles may soon get a chance to weigh in on whether or not adult film actors have the right to decide for themselves: condoms or no condoms.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) has advocated for the enforcement of condom mandates in the adult film industry for many years. Their most recent tactic is to put their mandate to a vote. By the end of November, AHF had enough signatures (15% of the voters in the previous mayoral election) to get the Initiative on the ballot. This means that come June 2012, LA residents might be able to vote on whether or not to tie porn production permits to the mandatory usage of “barrier protection,” like condoms in the film’s production.

However, there’s a big problem with the Initiative: prohibiting films that refuse to use condoms is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech. While the U.S. is a democracy, we’re a constitutional democracy, which means individuals have a number of rights that are protected, regardless of the number of people who vote to abridge them. For example, 99% of a town may vote to make it lawful to imprison the 1% of the population without a trial. The measure might pass, but it would not be lawful as it would violate the constitutional right to a trial. In this case, the condom mandate would abridge free speech by prohibiting adult films that refuse to utilize some form of barrier-protection. (more…)

From Daily Mail (UK):

An 18-year-old high school senior was scolded by her principal after she criticised her state governor in a tweet.

Emma Sullivan, of Fairway, Kansas, was reprimanded by the head of The Shawnee Mission East High School.

She was summoned to the principal’s office and was ordered to apologise to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback.

Emma posted the tweet during a field trip to the state Capitol.

After meeting Mr Brownback, Emma tweeted: ‘Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot.’

Mr Brownback’s office contacted the school and complained about the tweet.

(more…)

For very good and valid reasons, Americans understand the extraordinary importance of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right peacefully to assemble for redress of grievances.  That, of course, is the rationale for the Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) movement by which thousands of protestors are encamping in various public places around the country.

Our courts recognize few exceptions for the placing of limits on this exercise of free speech and in fact have themselves studied the issue in cases unrelated to OWS.  Courts recently have been debating whether limits on speech enacted by legislative bodies are constitutional.  As an example, a law prohibiting candidates for public office from lying about their opponents’ voting records during campaigns is drawing judicial scrutiny as an unconstitutional prohibition on protected free speech.  This matter is a serious one and whether we agree or not with OWS protestors (or tea party assemblies) we need to treat the subject based on constitutional principles rather than our own political predilections.  So why have the authorities suddenly stirred themselves to action to clean out OWS sites?

For one thing authorities have suddenly recognized some very important public principles:

First, public facilities are being taken over for the benefit of a few people as part of their attempt to advance solely their cause.  Parkland in central cities is very scarce and has been misused by groups who pitch tents from end to end in these parks and prevent (and in some instances intimidate) ordinary citizens from using public land.  Often these tent cities are abandoned during the day while the occupiers leave and go about their regular lives (going to work, going home, attending entertainment venues, etc.)

Recently, there has been a major spike in violence including shootings.  In Oakland protestors succeeded in shutting down the ports, which are a major, job producer in that city.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle “OWS protestors gathered up for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful.  A faction of the protest group has advocated violence as a ‘diversity in tactics’ approach to demonstrating.”  Deaths have occurred in other cities as well, including Burlington, Vermont.   Secondly, there is an important public health issue that has arisen.  Protestors have been overwhelming the sanitary facilities at nearby businesses, cleaning and relieving themselves at bathrooms not built for such volume.  Finally, city authorities who have appeared to be looking the other way see that they have to take action.

(more…)

Examiner blogger Adam Meister was doing what bloggers do, namely posting the info that “journalists” refuse to write about. In this case, back in March, Meister found that a Baltimore Councilwoman was living in a different district than she claimed she was living in. As a result, the politician tried to sue the blogger for his posts.

City Councilwoman Belinda Conaway filed a lawsuit demanding an idiotic $21 million in damages for Meister’s expose of her true primary residence. But this week Conaway abruptly dropped her suit against the blogger.

Through public records, blogger Meister discovered that Conaway lives in Randallstown and not Baltimore, the city she was elected to represent. Conaway has, though, claimed she lives in an extended-family household in Baltimore.

Meister disputed Councilwoman Conaway’s claim and he posted tax information where Conaway claimed for tax purposes that Randallstown, not Baltimore, was her primary residence.

After the suit was filed Meister called for it to be dismissed based on the information he had uncovered. At the hearing for dismissal Conaway’s attorney, Thomas J. Maronick, admitted that Conaway did sign the paper stating that her primary residence was Randallstown and then said that he was dropping the lawsuit.

(more…)

By Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

In a capitulation to Islamic supremacists and violent radical Leftists, French and European Union authorities have canceled a free speech rally that we had planned with a coalition of American and European human rights organizations in Strasbourg, the seat of the European Parliament.

Our human rights organizations Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and its sister group, Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) were planning to hold their first-ever transatlantic summit in Strasbourg, France, on July 2.

The SIOA/SIOE summit was dedicated to the defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law – all principles denied by Islamic law.

But the Strasbourg police could not guarantee our safety. When the thugs of the Antifa group and Islamic supremacist organizations announced plans to hold a violent counter-demonstration and to do everything they could to disrupt our activities, the authorities canceled permission for our demonstration and conference, instead of standing up to these violent neo-fascists and their Islamic supremacist allies.

Strasbourg authorities told us that they could not guarantee our safety at the conference and demonstration location, the Place de la Republique. Efforts were made to hold the demonstration nearby, but the authorities still considered security to be too much of an issue.

(more…)

Who will watch the watchers? In a world of ubiquitous, hand-held digital cameras, that’s not an abstract philosophical question. Police everywhere are cracking down on citizens using cameras to capture breaking news and law enforcement in action.

In 2009, police arrested blogger and freelance photographer Antonio Musumeci on the steps of a New York federal courthouse. His alleged crime? Unauthorized photography on federal property.

Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.

Although the legal right to film on federal property now seems to be firmly established, many other questions about public photography still remain and place journalists and citizens in harm’s way. Can you record a police encounter? Can you film on city or state property? What are a photographer’s rights in so-called public spaces?

(more…)

After hearing news the other day that the Obama administration had appointed a new position to monitor and push back against negative online press we thought some liberals in DC might think it wasn’t enough. So we sent Joe Schoffstall out to see just how far liberals would go to silence conservative speech. Joe went around Georgetown in DC with a petition to “Ban Conservative Hate Sites” that said this:

The undersigned hereby adamantly demand that the United States government shut down right wing hate sites. The hate speech propagated by sites like the Drudge Report, Hot Air, Instapundit, Big Government, and others must not be allowed to corrupt our political discourse any longer. These sites are dangerous not only to truth and freedom but also to our society as a whole. BAN THEM NOW!

That is pretty radical rhetoric that no reasonable, freedom-loving, red-blooded American could possibly agree with, right? Well, see for yourself:

It’s shocking isn’t it? Then again, perhaps it shouldn’t be.

After all Exposing Leftists, um, exposed that liberal college student in California were willing to ban conservatives from talk radio.

(more…)

Those of the Left rarely like to admit or acknowledge that they are of the Left.

Witness their repeated vacillations on what they call themselves.  It was “progressive” – until people figured out what that meant and loathed it.

So they bastardized the classical definition of “liberal” – until people found out what they meant by that and loathed it.

So they are now back to “progressive” – hoping that no one remembers how much they loathed it the last go ‘round.

So too is it with the Leftist grievance groups.  The assemblages that exist aren’t really to promote their alleged agenda items – but to grow government, and demonize and silence those who stand opposed to their so doing.

To give you but one example of this misdirection, let us consider the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).  The name says it all, right?  They purport to stand for the “Advancement of Colored People.”

But they really do not.

(more…)

On April 3^rd, Chinese artist and citizen investigator Ai Weiwei was taken into custody by his government while attempting to fly from Beijing to Hong Kong. Initially, Chinese law enforcement would not disclose the reason, but yesterday announced they were investigating him for “suspected economic crimes.” His whereabouts are still unknown.

With the Arab world’s civil unrest in the periphery, many China critics believe the arrest of Ai Weiwei (pronounced EYE-Way-Way) is part of a recent crackdown on Chinese dissidents to stop any climate of protest from migrating into their borders. For nearly two-months, China has been arresting well known writers, human rights lawyers, and activists – making some completely vanish within their penal system. With well over a billion people under their governance, China’s leaders should fear demonstrations given their abysmal free speech and human rights record.

But the arrest of Ai Weiwei is markedly significant for one simple reason – he is one of their most prolific artists. Ai Weiwei was the “creative consultant” for the country’s iconic Beijing National Stadium – or what many refer to as China’s Olympic Bird’s Nest stadium. With the arrest of such a prominent figure, the country has sent the message to their people that no one, no matter how internationally heralded, is safe if they openly critique the government. And Ai Weiwei has done his share of criticizing. (more…)

In the year that has passed since the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, the liberal elites have waged a war against the First Amendment.  Liberal politicians including President Barack Obama and Senator Harry Reid, liberal media corporations like the New York Times, and labor unions have joined together to support restrictions on speech and liberty.

Their proposals for “reform” have fallen flat, in large part because they have been exposed as efforts to chill the Freedom of Speech.  These attacks on the First Amendment have used populist rhetoric in an attempt to silence corporate speech.  These efforts to silence corporations are difficult to reconcile when one sees that the New York Times, a media corporation, published a new proposal for “reform” authored by the founder of a non-profit corporation, aimed at silencing speakers that do not support their liberal world view.

In the April 4, 2011 edition of the New York Times, David Callahan launched an ideological attack on the boogeymen de jour, Charles and David Koch.  Callahan sets the tone of his article by attacking the Koch brothers for “conceal[ing] the recipients of their largess.”  In order to prevent this from occurring, Callahan would “require all nonprofit organizations that engage in political advocacy to reveal their donors.”

While Mr. Callahan alleges the current system can be utilized by the left and the right, he seems particularly offended by David Koch’s support of “ideologically driven organizations like the Cato Institute.”  Callahan argues that such groups should be treated differently from other not-for-profit organizations.

(more…)

In Citizens United v. FEC the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the government may determine whose speech is worthy of protection under the First Amendment. As a result of the decision, individuals, small businesses, corporations, labor unions, and non-profit organizations may all engage in political speech. It is not the bailiwick of government bureaucrats to judge and determine who should be allowed to speak. As Chief Justice John Roberts has remarked: “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.” Citizens United appropriately limited the government’s ability to regulate and prohibit speech.

Another case that questions the ability of the government to regulate speech is currently before the Supreme Court: Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. This case deals with Arizona’s “clean elections” campaign financing system.

There have been many attempts to create systems where the government subsidizes campaigns. Most label these systems “public financing,” but in reality they are anything but. The truest form of “public financing” is a system in which citizens can voluntarily contribute to those candidates which they support. Each and every government subsidized system undermines the sovereignty of the American people.

The most recognizable of these systems is the presidential financing system, which allows individuals to make a voluntary contribution to help finance presidential campaigns when filing their annual tax return. Once a candidate agrees to participate in this financing system they must adhere to guidelines established by the federal government. As the flaws of this system have become more apparent, even liberal politicians like Barack Obama have opted out of the system. In seeking to trim waste from the federal budget, Republican Members of Congress have attempted to curtail this misguided program.

(more…)

You may remember President Obama’s recent call for civil discourse this past January.  Well, it appears that the Left is still very much struggling with the #newtone online.  Unless, of course, you consider a persistent stream of steady death threats against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker a display of etiquette straight from the Emily Post Etipedia of manners.

Here’s but a small sampling from the #caring Tweeters:
(NOTE:  I prefer to view the video with music like this as accompaniment…)

Initially, I’d written a summary here of some of the details around Gov. Walker’s proposal, including some of the positive highlights, like granting employees the right to choose whether or not to contribute dues to a labor union.  But then I decided, “nahhhh….why bother?”  Agree or disagree with some, all or none of the Governor’s proposal, everyone has something to contribute to the conversation.  But death threats are NOT an acceptable part of ANY conversation.

I’d thought we’d learned that by now, after documenting the same exact behavior in January.  With all the Big-Brother Twitter monitoring the Soros flunkies are doing out there, you’d think they would have posted and condemned this by now.

So much for that #newtone.

(more…)

What do you get when you mix bureaucrats with a bunch of adorable puppies?

In Kim Houghton’s case, you get a major First Amendment lawsuit.

Kim Houghton decided after a successful, 20-year career in advertising that she wanted more.  She wanted to realize her American Dream and become an entrepreneur in a business focused on dogs.

She had the gumption to quit her job and make her dream come true:  Wag More Dogs is a high-end canine daycare located next to a popular dog park in Arlington, Virginia.  Kim commissioned an outdoor mural on her wall that has cartoon dogs, bones and paw prints as a way to give something back to the park she’d frequented for years, and build up some good will for her new business.

The mural was a big hit.  After all, who doesn’t like puppies?   Things were smooth for a few months.

And then Arlington bureaucrats got involved.

Officials blocked Kim’s building permit and told her that she could not open unless she painted over the mural or covered it with a blue tarp.

Her crime?

Painting a piece of art that—in the eyes of government officials—had too strong a “relationship” to her business.

(more…)

While it is clear that Jared Loughner was less motivated by his leftish leaning ideology than he was by his mental illness, we think that Progressive Democrats are 100% correct when they call for action against factors leading to our toxic political climate.

We are therefore openly calling for public hearings to look into the actions of political agitators in this nation.

Democrats have made it clear that they want to investigate and restrict Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew Breitbart, and others to be sure. In fact, there are so many conservatives to investigate, we need to come up with a strategy to tackle the work.

We propose that any investigation begin with events that led to criminal behavior, like say the WTO riots in Seattle. Or the RNC riots in St. Paul. Or the angry mob protests that have taken place at the home of Bank of America executives. Or the Kenneth Gladney beating. That should provide a good start.

When would the Progressive Democrats like to schedule these hearings?

(more…)