Of the countless words expressed by friends and foes since the shocking killing of conservative provocateur Charlie Kirk, the young husband and father who dared express opinions in the crowded public square, only two matter: free speech.
Hopefully some of it is sincere, and not just occasioned by the moment. Arguments against interest are usually assumed to be sincere, so people challenging Trump and Bondi from the right probably are:
Both [FCC Carr's and AG Bondi's] statements were badly out of line as a matter of law and policy. But they were also politically damaging. Republicans in general, and Trump in particular, have fought an endless battle to preserve freedom of speech and to claim the high ground of being the protectors of free speech. They need to keep this high ground.
It's better than the usual mode in which people are trying to compete to see how much speech they can rule out of bounds, I guess. At least it's a short break.
1 comment:
When I first saw these comments by Bondi, I reflexively started out in complete agreement with you. I thought about a counterargument, and ended up convincing myself she's obliged to do this.
She took the job of enforcing the laws of the United States as enumerated by the Legislature. She is doing that. Yes, prosecutors have discretion, but here there are two choices:
1. Stand up for free speech directly, which will look good, and make a nice gesture, but will not get the law off the books. In this you'll be abdicating your oath to enforce the law, but perhaps that's worth it.
2 Make them live to the rules they thought were good, and which are in fact in force, and which you've sworn to apply, so that they may see the dangers in them. Perhaps then they will agree to change the law.
At any rate, I don't think it's an easy question at all.
Post a Comment