Apparently free speech is great if you can remain anonymous, but if you’re required to stand behind your ideas with your name and reputation, not so much.
Outside of elections there’s a system of checks and balances regarding what you can say or can’t say. Libel and defamation laws prevent anyone from saying anything they want without legal repercussions. But in elections, anything goes.
Wisconsin’s overtly partisan Supreme Court proves conservative activism can go unchecked by their conservative followers (the ones who see liberal activism everywhere), due in part to a frightened compliant media, even when it goes beyond the case before them with manufactured “what if” scenarios to justify their rulings. Jsonline:
The Wisconsin State Journal included this important view left out by jsonline:
Piling on to an agreement already reached in a federal lawsuit, a divided state Supreme Court put a freeze late Friday on a state rule regulating political ads and messages in the run-up to elections.
The order goes beyond an agreement already reached in a federal case between the Government Accountability Board and two groups that are suing the state elections agency because they say the rule violates their right to free speech. In an unusual action, the Supreme Court decided 4-3 to place a temporary injunction on the rule even though they have not yet agreed to hear the case.
"Petitioners have met their burden to show a likelihood of irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not issued," the brief order reads.
The court split along what have become typical ideological lines
Three justices dissented, with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley writing that the injunction appeared unnecessary given the agreement. "The majority reads potential injuries ... that are not there," Bradley wrote.“…reads POTENTIAL injuries…THAT ARE NOT THERE.” That’s called…judicial activism.
Who supports judicial activism, only if it goes their way?
“…the lawyer for the plaintiffs, who include Americans for Prosperity, tea party groups and other conservatives…”We’ve adopted the willful ignorance advocated by conservatives by going along with the idea you can bash candidates freely during an election, as long as you’re not asking anyone to vote. What other purpose would there be for someone or a group, to pay for an ad during an election? Get serious.
Right now we’re legally buying into the conservative mime, “it’s just a coincidence.” Without the checks and balances of taking responsibility with disclosure, whether it’s legal or just putting your credibility on the line, it’s anything goes with complete anonymity.
The rule in question by the Accountability Board requires groups that air ads or make communications praising or criticizing political candidates during election season to disclose where they get their money and how they spend it - even if those groups don't specifically urge their audience to vote for or against the candidate … reached an agreement … to stop enforcing the part of the rule that automatically required a funding disclosure for all ads that mention candidates and their character, record or stands on issues before an election … But the agreement left in place … the rule that require disclosure not just for expensive television ad campaigns but for Internet-only campaigns and anything else that costs more than $25 to disseminate.Bloggers can blog all day and night for free. So when you consider Internet campaigns that spend over $25, it affects nobody’s free speech rights, but does address the new Internet media machine.