Media acquisitions vindicate Citizens United

Note - links to my more recent comments on free speech - up to late 2015 - follow at the end of this post.

Recent media acquisitions (like the purchase by Amazon CEO, Jeff Bezos, of The Washington Post), are rendering ultimate vindication to the Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United decision. 

It's now blindingly obvious that traditional distinctions between media vs corporate speech have all but evaporated. It's no longer plausible to argue that traditional media outlets deserve a specially protected status in the realm of free speech. 

Nevertheless, opponents of Citizens United continue to offer explicit and implicit endorsements for 'privileged' media speech. This is absurd. To defend privileged speech is to argue that advocacy groups/corporations outside of an (inherently subjective) media identity do not deserve free speech. It's the ultimate incarnation of Orwell's warning - ''all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'' Whether driven by seeming business interests (Bezos - Washington Post), or personal interests (see John Henry's acquisition of The Boston Globe), where corporate/political owner sympathies are perceptibly apparent, the flowing social implication is evident - media speech is not as 'pure' as some would suggest.

In this sense, it's astonishing that many commentators see no hypocrisy in the flagrantly biased approach that they take towards media assessment (see Pitts here, then here). Consider the dichotomy of reaction that characterized Henry's Globe acquisition, and suggestions that the Koch brothers might purchase The Los Angeles Times. While Henry attracted very little scrutiny, rumors over the LA Times garnered widespread outrage. Indeed, half the LA Times newsroom apparently threatened to quit if the Koch purchase went ahead. 

             Of course, when one considers the facts objectively, the distance between Henry and the Koch brothers isn't obvious. For a start, much as he might frame his purchase as a personal endeavor, Henry has spent over $1 million supporting Democratic candidates. Suddenly, the Koch brothers have company in the land of political activism. This speaks to a certain truth - overtly liberal media acquisitions are ever apparent. For one example, take Facebook billionaire (and avowed liberal), Chris Hughes's 2012 purchase of The New Republic.

So we need to be honest. Ultimately, if we want historic media outlets to survive, politically accentuated purchases will probably be unavoidable. But this doesn't mean that we should be delusional to the modern media industry. As much as the Citizens United decision was unpopular, it was also logically inevitable. Why? Because to argue otherwise - that traditional media outlets have a special status in society - represents the height of arrogance. It's the embrace of a profoundly un-American system of tiered speech - one in which the wealthy can buy speech dominions while other corporate/NGO entities are restrained in silence.

As Justice Kennedy explained in his Citizens United opinion:

''The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. [The law] makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.'' 

If interested, below are some of my other writings on freedom of speech (from as recent as late 2016) -

Debate - free speech and campus speech
Citizens United Serves Our Democracy

American Speech Law is Exceptional

Comments on McLaughlin Group on student free speech

Mizzou, Yale, and the Battle of Okinawa

Alice in Arabia

The Classroom Plot

A politician, a tweet and a question of freedom

The freer the speech, the stronger the democracy

Free speech in NYC

We must not censor our entertainment industry

Britain's speech sickness

European idiocy on free speech

European Idiocy on Political Speech

This is an extraordinarily stupid prosecution. Le Pen is a racist and thus an unpleasant woman. But punishing her for controversial political statements is a terrible mistake. The rise of the far right in Europe is surging undaunted. From neo-Nazis in Greece to fascists in Spain, those who once shouted from the fringe are now finding new power. In Germany, the Nuremberg of 1946 finds sustaining echoes in the Nuremberg of 2013. In France, Le Pen's political movement currently finds second place in national polls. Even Britain is afflicted.

For too long, Europeans have pretended that political extremism was a thing of the past – locked away in horrific memory and sourced only in Islamist terrorism. Now they’re paying the price in a unified extremist energy. The urgency is real, Europe must act.

To address this rot, European governments must attack the hate mongers at the source of their power. Reforming speech laws would be a good place to start. A while back, I argued that Europe could learn from the American tradition on free speech. Restricting political activity, I suggested, only sustains extremist narratives. Tragically however, instead of taking inspiration from Skokie and Brandenburg, Europe’s governments have further restricted civic freedom. The spirit of revolutionary France has given way to a Government at war with twitter. The British Parliament, once home to Wilberforce and Churchill, now seeks dominion over the UK Press.

By constantly re-defining the contours of legitimate speech, European governments have chilled all speech. They’ve fostered a popular disaffection; an isolation that’s been greeted by a mass of welcoming and warring extremists. Le Pen's prosecution will only drive more supporters to her flag.

SEE ALSO some of my other writings on free speech

Major problems at the BBC

This is an extremely troubling story. Not because of the general issues troubling the BBC - those are well known. The organization has long been a bloated and inefficient institution. But rather, because of the complete lack of scrutiny to which the BBC is subjected. As a public broadcaster and the annual recipient of billions of dollars in public money, the BBC requires robust and incisive scrutiny. However, where (as the report illustrates) UK law is used as a defense against effective scrutiny, the BBC is able to continue its work unchallenged. This is total absurdity. Consider a situation in which government officials took public money, behaved incompetently and then refused to allow the media to report on their activities. That's basically what is happening here. But it isn't only the BBC that must be blamed, it's also the pathetic defamation law of the United Kingdom. Law that rewards the rich and punishes those who wish to pursue the truth.

Caveat- I've met many BBC journalists and they've nearly always been intelligent, fair minded individuals. But their organization faces major problems. Those issues must be addressed.

We must not censor our entertainment industry

Note- This post is also published on The Huffington Post.

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, from across the spectrum of the gun control debate, various actors are challenging the entertainment industry's right to free speech. Representing Obama, Biden has met with industry representatives. NRA chief, Wayne LaPierre, has suggested that the industry bears the largest share of the blame for Sandy Hook. Most disappointingly however, major media contributors have also jumped on the anti-free speech bandwagon. These individuals apparently believe that they have the right to define appropriate programming for others.

Consider this argument by Ramin Setoodeh. Setoodeh arrogantly proclaims that because he was uncomfortable with the recent movie, Texas Chainsaw 3D, ".... gore at the movies just doesn’t feel entertaining". Therefore, he argues, Hollywood must abandon this genre. Except, as indicated by Chainsaw's box office takings, many others obviously thought the opposite. For me, this is the crux of the issue. While individually, we might not always agree with its products, our entertainment industry is nonetheless at the heart of what America is all about. Not just in terms of its vigorous manifestation of free speech, but also, in terms of how this 'freedom to create' interacts with broader notions of American capitalism. Put simply, the fundamental truth is that the success of movies/video games resides upon their consumer desirability. While the First Amendment essentially assures that government cannot impose excessive legal restrictions on speech, my great concern is that further pressure from various actors could fuel an already present (see South Park) condition of self-censorship in the entertainment industry. This would be a disaster. Such a dynamic would not only assert the authoritarian moral judgments of the few, in preference to the majority opinions of society, it would also encourage a slippery slope towards greater future censorship. In essence, the question would be asked, if violence is to be divorced from entertainment, then why not also the presentation of drugs (for the children's sake)?, or sex (let's stop STDs)?, or religion (we can't risk inflaming violence)? etc. The precedent would be set and the following consequences would be clear: A thought police society locked in the despair of a creative, emotional and intellectual prison. 

Just look at Europe for an example of what happens when political correctness takes root. 

I'm not being alarmist. Today, censorship sympathizers are sadly a mainstream occurrence (see my response - it's the first comment after the op/ed).
 

No one should deny that the Sandy Hook massacre was a tragedy of terrible proportion. I freely agree, as a country - republicans, democrats and independents alike, we need to work together to reduce the risks of future atrocities. But when it comes to the entertainment industry, the correct course of action is obvious. Parents should exert greater control over the entertainment choices of their children and adults should ignore products which offend their moral values. It's incredibly important that we remember, without controversial speech, America would not have been born and slavery might have longer endured.  

In it's ability to drive debate forwards, often in unpredictable ways, controversy can be an incredible force for good. Because of its polluting influence, content based censorship of America's entertainment industry must be avoided at all costs.

South Park creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker discussing censorship (comment at 5.10 is especially important)

Syrian Rebel Victory - Taftanaz, US Entertainment Industry and Free Speech

1) Syrian rebels have seized a major Assad air base in the north of the country. Their victory (assuming they are able to hold the base) represents another step towards Assad's ultimate defeat. In specific terms, the capture of the Taftanaz base offers a number of key strategic opportunities for the rebels. First, being proximate to Aleppo (about 15 miles), the facility provides a forward operating base from which the rebels can now launch operations against government forces in that city. In addition, Taftanaz is located next to the main Syrian M45 highway (have a look on google maps) or in military terms, MSR. As such, the base also offers the rebels the prospect to dominate the direct route south to Hamah, Homs and ultimately Damascus. Finally, the capture imposes another psychological blow on the Syrian regime. Apparently the Syrian Army abandoned its position during the battle for Taftanaz. This does not inspire confidence in the regime's ability to motivate its forces. (Though the regime's elite units are ideologically conjoined to Assad).

            What can we expect now? For one, further government defections in the coming weeks. Also, increasing desperation by Assad and his allies in the Lebanese Hizballah and Iran (and Russia). On the Iran/Hizballah front, it's possible these two might attempt to create an incident that distracts international attention away from Assad. One note of caution however, the group that seized Taftanaz subscribes to a Sunni extremist ideology and is regarded by the US/EU as a terrorist group. One of the reasons why I support arming Syrian rebel nationalists, is so that these elements can counter-balance the extremists. Both now and after Assad is gone. We do not want a 2006 Iraq style sectarian bloodletting in post-Assad Syria.

2) The news that entertainment groups are meeting with VP Biden's gun control task force concerns me. The Federal Government has no place pressuring the movie/tv/gaming industry to self-regulate the content of their products. The entertainment industry caters to demand - if people don't like a movie or a computer game, then they won't purchase access to that product. Fortunately, we have the First Amendment. We must ensure that we don't follow the European route of limited free speech.

Hagel, Obama re-Afghanistan, Free Speech, Gun Control, China

1) I was wrong in my earlier support for Chuck Hagel. After re-considering my 'capability, knowledge and character' test (the framework I use when deciding whether to support cabinet nominees), I now no longer believe that Hagel meets the 'knowledge' requirement to be America's next Secretary of Defense. Put simply, his positions on the major issues of national security are deeply troubling to me. They indicate a world view that I believe to be misguided. This isn't about his Israel comments - it should be obvious to all that US-Israeli interests will sometimes diverge (though the anti-Semitic tone Hagel used was unpleasant). However, I cannot understand how Hagel honestly opposes sanctions against Iran. I cannot understand how he can be so openly comfortable with the notion of additional cuts to defense (further cuts on top of Obama's $450 bn/ten year cuts). Mainly, I have serious issues with Hagel's position on Iraq and Afghanistan. Hagel referred to the Iraq 'Surge' as the ''most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.'' When in fact, it was an audacious policy of great success. Hagel has also signaled a comfort with  Obama's increasingly ludicrous Afghanistan policy (see point 2). Taken together, these positions present a concerning picture about the advice and leadership that Hagel would provide as SecDef. Like other conservatives, I also worry that Obama intends to use Hagel to put a Republican face on major defense cuts.

2) Obama's policy towards Afghanistan has always been a disaster. First, he couldn't make his mind up about whether to support McChrystal's strategy. Second, he announced to the Taliban that the US would withdraw on a timeline. Third, he has systematically entertained the notion that his domestic spending priorities outweigh this key concern of national security. Fourth, he allows his policy to be driven by the shifting tides of US domestic politics, rather than by the advice of his senior military/national security leadership. Obama must not burn our Afghanistan successes in a misguided rush for the exit.

3) The growing complaints over video game/movie violence are pathetic and to me at least, also exceptionally annoying. We live in a free society. The First Amendment protects the right of professionals in the entertainment industry to shape their creations as they so desire. This is simple. If games/movies exceed the boundaries of social acceptance, then those productions will cease to gain consumer support and their producers will go out of business. In this context, at the margins free speech regulates itself. America must not follow the European course on free speech. A route typified by highly destructive wars against freedom.

4) Alex Jones is a delusional moron. He loves the sound of his own voice and he doesn't have a clue. But if Jones is a representative of American conservatism, Stalin was a democrat. Piers Morgan is trying to improve ratings on his show and I expect that he is succeeding. On a more serious note, there's one major question that I have for aggressive gun control advocates. If access is the key, why is gun crime highest in highly restrictive gun control locales like Chicago, DC, LA and Detroit?

5) In the long term, China will not sustainably replace the United States as the world's sole superpower. Consider China's absence of basic freedoms, failure to respect human rights, entrenchment of wealth and power in an unelected few and endemic culture of corrupt political patronage. These social challenges portend storms over the horizon.

Syria, Debt Negotiations, Hezbollah, Russia, Piers Morgan

1) Syria

The defection by the head of Syria's Military Police to the rebels represents another step towards Assad's collapse. As I predicted a few weeks ago (I speak at - 10.32, 15.23, 22.25), defections will increase as momentum continues to root more firmly with the rebels.  While because of the sectarian make up of Assad's power base, certain elite units are unlikely to withdraw their support for the dictator, Assad's days are nonetheless numbered. He simply has insufficient financial, military and popular power to sustain against the rebel onslaught. The United States must exert increased pressure on Russia to end their support for his regime. We want to ensure that he departs Syria as quickly and bloodlessly as possible.

2) Debt Negotiations

President Obama's return to Washington is as much a political stunt as it is a gesture towards resolving the debt impasse. He should never have gone to Hawaii amidst such a serious financial crisis. Unless Obama is willing to offer Boehner serious entitlement reforms and unless Boehner offers Obama increased tax revenues, there will be no deal. Hopefully we can get some kind of short term deal to avoid the sequester cuts. With regards to defense, I have argued that these cuts would be catastrophic. A short term deal is far from ideal. However, perhaps the new Congress can act more seriously than its predecessor?

3) Hezbollah Christmas Message

Hezbollah's greeting to Christians illustrates the importance that the group places on the maintenance of a cross-sectarian support base. The organization seeks to maintain an image of a Shia liberator allied to the ambitions of ''the oppressed" across the Middle East - not just for Shia, but for all. The problem for Hezbollah is that by supporting Assad's continuing murder in Syria they have undercut this narrative. Ultimately, I still believe that Hezbollah will abandon Assad before the end. The truth is that Hezbollah is an extremist terrorist group dedicated to the assertion of an authoritarian and fundamentalist Shia theology. They might have a better PR strategy than Al Qa'ida, but their pretense of affinity for democracy is not real.

4) Russia

Putin's Russia offers the US no meaningful relationship. We must be much tougher on Putin. I will have an opinion piece on this issue in the coming days.

5) Piers Morgan

The deportation petition against Piers Morgan is stupid. He is lawfully present in the United States and he has the right to freedom of speech. True freedom of speech doesn't exist in the UK. We must ensure it continues to exist here.

Britain's speech sickness and why Leveson would make it worse

'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.'

Thomas Jefferson was right, free speech is not a perfect value. Because of the infinite subjectivity that defines free speech, sometimes its ideal can achieve a discord counter to the common interest. But when free speech is excessively restrained, society is also detained in a dark, stagnant cell of lost ideas and imprisoned truths. Sadly in Britain, the cell door is closing at an alarming rate.

In order to keep the cell door open, the British Parliament must first reject Leveson's advisory to establish a new press regulatory framework. If MPs follow his recommendations, they will weaken the 'scrutiny of power' that any functioning democracy requires. A new and expansive regulatory body will mean that the contours of 'legitimate' speech in Britain, are practically and (via the 'chilling effect') perceptively determined by the subjective opinions of regulators, rather than by the individual instincts of journalists. Hacking and harassment are already illegal under UK law and simply require more effective enforcement. New restrictions on press freedom would only serve to reinforce the terrible condition of the UK's present speech law.

For a timely example of the current law's negative impact, look to Lord McAlpine. After wrongly being accused as a sex offender, McAlpine's ensuing fury was obviously justified. Unfortunately, instead of pursuing vindication via the facts, McAlpine has gone far further. Seeking to take advantage of the thousands of twitter users who repeated the false allegations when they first made the news (and before the error became established), McAlpine's legal team have demanded that all these 'tweeters' pay a price. Tweeters must apologize, hand over their details and will then be required to make individually determined charity donations (plus an 'administration charge') in restitution for their sins.

McAlpine seeks to use the law for intimidation and profit. By attacking non-malicious speech by those who, albeit wrongly, believed they were speaking on a critical truth - a sex abuse scandal at the heart of the British political establishment, McAlpine is challenging the basic and larger presumption of free speech - 'scrutiny of power'. McAlpine could have accepted an apology and compensation from major media outlets. Instead, by the impact his lawsuits will have on 'chilling' future speech, the former Parliamentarian has struck another blow against free speech in Britain.

Beyond McAlpine's example, there are two overarching elements to Britain's present speech malady - the criminal element and the commercial.

First, the criminal side. This year, Britons have been arrested for an array of speech offenses. In March, a student was imprisoned for his racist tweets. In August, a seventeen year old was arrested and given a formal warning after he sent a taunting message to an Olympian. In October, a man was jailed for 12 weeks after he made jokes about a missing five year old girl. In November, a man was arrested after he set fire to a poppy and uploaded its photo onto Facebook. True, all these acts were affronts to common decency. But it's also true that in each case, the speakers words lacked a joined violent intention. By setting such a restrictive boundary for speech, English law asserts popular emotion at the cost of the individual's voice. Supporters of these restrictions would have us believe that the laws stabilize society by establishing norms of social interaction. They are wrong. By limiting speech on passionately held issues, the law drives the purveyors of such speech to burrow into hardened narratives of victimhood and to coalesce in new coalitions of anger and fear. Just look at the rise of the far right 'English Defense League'. For all its idiocy and evil, the group is still seen by its members as a voice for the 'oppressed'.

As history teaches us, excessive restriction of free speech can also quickly lead to a deeply unpleasant reality.

Now the commercial front to Britain's speech sickness.

Though obfuscated by the phone hacking scandal, over the past few years Britain's rich and powerful have increasingly pursued aggressive legal action against those who would threaten their 'brand image'. Using democratically ludicrous creations like the 'super-injunction', lawyers have gagged the public. At the same time, by restricting public awareness of public figures true personas and then simultaneously allowing those figures to make money off their false public images, the Courts have stood in defense of false corporate personalities. An example? Until his super-injunction cloaked extra-marital affair was leaked in Parliament, soccer star Ryan Giggs was viewed by countless parents as a role model for their children. When you consider Giggs's endorsement deals, his false personality certainly did no harm for his wallet.

So, thanks to the English Courts and their ally in Leveson, public access to relevant knowledge is being sacrificed at the false altar of 'private information'. The result? The English judiciary has become an absolute arbiter of 'fact', as well as a gleeful and in terms of 'binding the world', even global defender of misrepresentation. Thus far, the British Government has been an active ally to this agenda.

Aside from the philosophical-moral deficiency inherent in Britain's war on free speech, English law also reaps varied and highly destructive practical consequences for the UK. 

Consider...

Fearing a defamation suit, The Sunday Times failed to print allegations that Qatar's soccer World Cup bid was being pursued via corrupt means. The impact? In 2022, the world's greatest supporting event might be the result of bribes.

Art critics are increasingly reluctant to report suspected forgeries.

Terrorism researchers writing thousands of miles away from Britain are summoned to pay defamation awards in response to their crucial analysis.

In 2008, Jimmy Savile (Britain's Sandusky) sued The Sun after it linked him to a sex abuse scandal. Savile effectively chilled future allegations and was able to escape justice for the many sex crimes it now appears that he committed.

And so, from art to criminal conduct, from sport to politics, the insidious face of British speech law is rendered apparent. Without tolerance for speech, British democracy will become little more than the servant of the lawyer and the bastion of the activist judge. Free speech imprisoned; debate will stifle, ideas will wilt and the powerful will reap the dividends of a society deprived of effective scrutiny.

The British Parliament must reject the Leveson report.

If you liked this piece, you might enjoy one of my other free speech focused pieces-
American Free Speech is Exceptional
Free speech in NYC

The freer the speech, the stronger the democracy

We must not censor our entertainment industry

Media acquisitions vindicate Citizens United

European idiocy on free speech

The most recent US free speech case. We are lucky to have The First Amendment.

Nakoula police detention

Nakoula (the film maker) has been interviewed by police. It may well be true that he has broken the terms of his parole agreement. However, seeing as this event is centrally focussed on the ideal of free speech, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office must ensure that they either revoke his probation or quickly release him. The imagery of police detaining an individual because of his or her speech is one that should be deeply concerning to all Americans.

Cario and Benghazi - thoughts

In addition to my US politics focus, I have an MSc in Middle East Politics from SOAS, London. The area is one where I maintain a more analytical interest.
The actions that took place yesterday at the US Embassy in Cairo and the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya were disgusting. In Cairo, the US flag was ripped down, set on fire and then replaced with a black flag representative to that adopted by Al Qa'ida. In Benghazi, an armed mob attacked the US Consulate and murdered the US Ambassador as well as three other staffers. Why did this happen? Because some individuals are upset about a video. Yes, a video. In this case, the video is one apparently being produced by moronic Florida pastor Terry Jones and a number of Egyptian Copts who live in the United States. Jones is the same guy who threatened to burn Korans a while back. There are a number of comments that I want to make here.

1) There is absolutely no excuse for the violence we saw yesterday. Freedom of speech is an inherent right. If Terry Jones wants to be a moron then he has that right under the 1st amendment. Those who are upset by his film have every right to protest, but must do so in a peaceful way. Anyone who thinks that the appropriate reaction is to resort to violence and murder innocent diplomats is a pathetic human being. Religious leaders across the Islamic world must assert this point. There is a profound example of where this guidance has previously occurred - Ayatollah Sistani. In post-2003 Iraq, Sistani played a major role in persuading Iraqi Shia to engage with the political process and to reject the sectarian war that AQI and Sadr sought.

2) The US State Department public reaction to this incident was not good. Although Hillary Clinton has offered a tougher statement of condemnation this morning, the decision by the US Embassy in Cairo to condemn free speech was a grave error. Instead, the Embassy should have noted the US legal position on free speech while distancing themselves from Jones's idiocy. Relinquishing free speech in face of violent intimidation is always the wrong choice.

3) These incidents indicate the broader tensions that are still cooking in the region. In Egypt, the Copt community has long faced sustained persecution (including violence since President Morsi was elected). It would appear that the Salafist extremists who made up at least part of yesterday's Cairo protest, were to a degree, motivated by their natural hatred for the Copts. In Libya, political fractures remain a key challenge for the provisional government. The key is that regional political dynamics remain fundamentally unstable.

4) The USMC Embassy Security Detachment did a superb job in Cairo. They were calm, professional and allowed the crowd's fury to burn itself out. What happened in Benghazi is less clear.

UPDATE - It appears that two US Marines were killed while attempting to protect diplomatic personnel in Benghazi. The US Military has initiated a Crisis Action Team and is in the process of deploying a FAST unit to reinforce US security capabilities in Libya. 

UK laws on free speech

UK law is stupid when it comes to issues of free speech. Recently, a number of criminal prosecutions have been brought against individuals who made remarks on the internet which upset people. These comments were dumb, mean spirited and deserving of repudiation. However, they should not have received criminal sanction. The fact that English law imposes a burden on a speaker to ensure that his speech will not reasonably be perceived as offensive (even if he does not intend for it to be so) is truly ridiculous. Such a burden restricts emotional debate and chills public discourse on matters of key public concern. It also leads to a profoundly tiered approach towards determining what is and what is not legitimate speech, allowing prosecutors and the police to apply their own flexibly subjective standards in the enforcement of the law. These laws are un-democratic and authoritarian. Sadly they are supplemented by equally bad UK laws on defamation. I am gratified that the US still protects free speech where the UK does not.

It shouldn't be illegal to be an ass hole.

Facebook 'Like' = Free Speech?

The decision by a US District Judge to reject constitutional protection for a man who clicked 'like' on a political candidate's Facebook page, was in my view a serious error. The US Appeals Court should overturn this ruling. The individual was affirming his support for a political ideal and was engaged in a public domain speaking on an issue of public concern. To suggest that a Facebook 'like' falls below the standard for constitutional protection, is similar to suggesting that the government should be able to restrict a speaker from setting up a yard sign on his front lawn. In both cases the speaker is attempting to present his private political agenda to a public audience. From my perspective, a Facebook 'like' is an affirmation of agreement and thus a clear statement of opinion.