How Dare Those Bureaucrats Earn Their Salaries?

Sully (naturally) links to someone who sees California's decision to treat Tweets and Facebook status updates no differently than campaign ads as a First Amendment infringement, under the headline "Save the Tweets" (no exclamation mark afterwards though, sadly). But Sherman's statement:

Their primary concern, apparently, is that the regulation of political speech be as comprehensive as possible.

is disingenuous at best. "Apparently"? It's their job, you maroon. The law of California states that political advocacy speech gets regulated. The media by which that advocacy is carried to the public is completely irrelevant.

If he wants to argue that political speech should be totally unregulated -- a bridge even the Roberts court didn't cross in the Citizens United case, which acknowledged the need for some regulation, if not the specific regulation in front of them -- then fine, make that argument. But expressions of faux outrage over a government agency doing the job its supposed to do is just blinkered, ideological idiocy.

I wonder if Sherman also applauds the non-job various government regulatory agencies did that contributed to the BP spill. The exact same logic applies.

No comments:

Post a Comment