Back when I was on the MT version of this page, I had put up a link to the McCain-Feingold Insurrection. Since it appeared that the threat to count links as “contributions” had died away, when I switched to WordPress, I didn’t really think about moving that link and banner over here to the WordPress template.

As far as I know, no new threats have appeared. Bad publicity has, possibly, defused the situation, making it impractical (though, from the point-of-view from these bipartisan free-speech attackers, not undesirable) to go after blogs at this point. However, I wanted to make it clear that, should any attack on the political free speech of blogs occur, I will not continue blogging in my usual way, mentioning politics whenever something happens to catch my eye. Instead, I will make it a point to post more political posts, with as many links to politicians’ websites as I can work into the posts.

Why?

Geek With a .45 said it well here:

The First Amendment says this:
—————
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
—————

And that’s precisely what it means.

Accordingly, I believe we can all get behind these following points:

1. Freedom of speech and the press is of critical importance to the preservation of both individual freedom, and the free character of our nation.
2. It is a traditional American Liberty that we guard jealously.
3. This Freedom is directly and unambiguously protected by the Bill of Rights.
4. Our Blogs are the way we choose to directly manifest that freedom. They are our sacred 21st century soapboxes, and we view them as being completely protected.
5. The Infrastructure that enables blogs is the instrumentality of that freedom, and is therefore also protected.
6. The universal criticality of this transcends partisan consideration.
7. Therefore, We, the proud members of the McCain-Feingold Insurrection, will continue to excercise our right of free speech through our online venues as we see fit, without limitation.
8. We shall vigorously defend our right and ability to do so going to such lengths and using such means as the situation and our individual consciences dictate.

I’m putting the banner (and its link) back. It may change slightly in the next few days (it’s a pixel or two wide for my sidebar, unfortunately), but I don’t expect it to disappear again.

Several months back, while I was still on Movable Type, I talked to a friend of mine who was just setting up her own blog. She eventually decided on WordPress (as did I, when I switched my hosting to Hosting Matters) and set up her blog.

It was a week or two before she actually posted, and as is my unfortunate habit, I forgot about it. When I went back, she’d posted quite a bit, but I didn’t really go through and read most of it. Today, I did. And, I found this.

The streets of Florida are turning into the streets of old Dodge City, folks. Yessir, ol’ Dictator Jeb has signed a law (that I guess he wrote himself, what with being a dictator and all) that lets people who, to use her words, “feel threatened” shoot at the people who made them feel that way.

Except, that’s not what the law says, is it? Here is the link she provides. Let’s look at an excerpt (all emphesis mine):

The measure, which passed the Legislature overwhelmingly earlier this year, says that people who are under attack do not have to retreat before responding. They have the right to “meet force with force, including deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so.”

Florida residents already have that right in their homes. The bill, which takes effect Oct. 1, extends the right to public spaces, such as the street or a place of business.

The word ‘threatened’ does appear in the article, by the way, in the context of being threatened, which is somewhat different than feeling threatened.

I’m just as outraged about this law as she is, but for entirely different reasons. I’m outraged because it shouldn’t be necessary. Someone attacks me or my family, and I need a law to tell me that I can fight back? I call bullshit. Ninety percent of the time, I’m not going to fight back, but if I decide not to fight back, I expect that to be because I’ve decided that fighting back is more dangerous to me than not fighting back, not because the state tells me that I can’t. If the state thinks it can tell me I have no right to fight back, the state has lost any moral right it ever had to tell me anything.

Florida doesn’t need this law. While I would’ve been happier if they’d tracked down and eliminated every law that was infringing on a right to self-defense (and those laws must exist, or they wouldn’t have passed this one), I can appreciate that the Florida legislature and governor are trying to protect the people’s ability to protect themselves.

If anyone really wants to see what happens in a place where you don’t have the right to respond to an attacker, look at England. (Smallest Minority has a ton of stories to give you a good look at what happens when we require people to roll over anytime they’re attacked, as well as lovely examples of why it isn’t the responsibility of the government to keep you safe… and if it’s not their responsibility, and the government also refuses you your right to defend yourself, then you’re not safe. Period.