Sen. Franken vs. Judge Sotomayor on Internet & 1st Amendment
Kudos to Senator Al Franken for bringing up the importance of the Internet and First Amendment today in his questions to Judge Sotomayor in her Senate confirmation hearings.
Franken asked Sotomayor if she agreed with the importance of keeping "the Internet the Internet" - or free, as it has been.
Sotomayor replied that she recognizes the crucial importance of the Internet in our society - but that the Supreme Court's role is to rule on the basis of Congressional law.
Franken pressed her, pointing out the importance of the First Amendment, as a part of the Constitution in effect superior to what Congress may do. (He could have also said, but, after all, only an Amendment to the Constitution can change the First Amendment - not a law enacted by Congress.)
Sotomayor replied that the First Amendment is not necessarily superior to "property rights" and other compelling interests.
I think Franken has the right of this. He might have further replied, if he had more time, that the Supreme Court has to follow the First Amendment, regardless of what Congress does.
Unfortunately, this is not what the Supreme Court has consistently done. The Supreme Court wisely struck down the Communications Decency Act in the late 1990s, but supported the FCC's censure of WBAI Radio in the late 1970s.
As I've indicated in my discussions of Sotomayor and the Doninger case, I'm concerned about her support - or lack of - of the First Amendment. Her response to Franken was not very reassuring.
She has comported herself very well at the hearings, however, and will likely be confirmed.
It's good to know that the First Amendment will at least have Senator Al Franken on its - and our - side.
See also The Flouting of the First Amendment.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bill benzon
Poppi Iceland
PattyJane
N. Jordan
Dr. Vanessa Neumann
CPH/NYC
Salon.com
Comments
but americans have submitted to elective oligarchy, in their souls. the limit of their ambition is to have a 'kind' master.
they will be increasingly disappointed.
That's what the Court has to decide. Where is the line drawn?
one down, NINETY NINE to go.
I guess I am being too harsh here, we may have a few INTERWEB friendly senators already :p
Franken is already making himself useful!
he will singlehandedly make C-span entertaining, too!
The situation with the web that I think was addressed in this exchange is to what extent can the government extend rights of ownership in a way that allows those owners to restrict content.
The evolution of the web into a mixture of public and private domains is going on now. In that context the extent to which service providers can limit content really is a legislative concern.
Is that scary. Yes! But stopping it requires having legislators like Franken who understand that the values underlying free speech have to be upheld in Congress as well as in the Courts. Because if Congress does the wrong thing, the Court is not always in position to correct it. Sotomayor is right about that.
when 'property rights' start to become the salient vector of inquiry in a discussion of the internet, we're all fucked.
Narcissus has an ax to grind. It is based on ignorance, arrogance, fantasies and lies. Those seem to be adequate for Narcissus to chug along happily.
Having grown up in the middle east and Europe and having spent time with people who managed to survive WWII, I find that people like Narcissus who find it hard to swallow their personal idols having been psychopathic murderers, practice denial of the murders as primary in their lives and fantasies. So be it.
I have run across people who assured me that slaves were ecstatic to be enslaved and that aboriginal North American did not mind in the slightest being slaughtered so that Europeans could steal their land. All of those people deny something that they find very hard to face up to.
Franken, the amateur has a better grasp of the meaning and intent of the constitution than the judicial nominee.
"Sotomayor replied that she recognizes the crucial importance of the Internet in our society - but that the Supreme Court's role is to rule on the basis of Congressional law."
Sorry, Soto, but the Supreme Court's role is to rule on the basis of the constitutionality of any law within its authority. It must not interpret intent or benefit. It must not recognize the legality of special interests. It must be blind and deaf to any argument but the constitution. Precedent is a previous decision by a jurist who may or may not have taken the advice of his or her belief, conscience, religion, culture, or political conviction, all of which has perverted the course of justice.
Sen. Franken asked a simple question to a professional lawyer. It is no wonder that she could not give a direct answer. She did not understand the question.