“I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire
This principle of individual liberty is the foundation of Western Liberal philosophy. If we expect others to leave us alone to do as we please with our property, then we must leave others alone to do as they please. Even if we wouldn’t choose the same. We can talk with them, reason with them, bribe them, try to persuade and convince them, but in the end, it’s the owner of a thing who gets the final say in what happens with a thing.
Before the 2017 Legislative Session began, Liberty Lobby LLC CEO Darryl W Perry began identifying bills of interest. This was initially done based solely on the titles of the Legislative Service Requests (LSRs), which are made public shortly after being filed. The text of the LSRs are then made available once the wording is finalized and has a signature from the sponsor. Not every LSR gets a bill number; a Representative or Senator can ask to withdraw the LSR. This often happens if there are multiple LSRs on the same topic with the same objective, or if the sponsor learns there is little chance of passage.
Of the LSRs marked as “of interest” by Liberty Lobby LLC, 39 were withdrawn before the text became available. Another 3 were withdrawn after the bill text became available, but before being assigned to a committee. Once committee hearing began in January, bills could not be withdrawn. However, the sponsor of SB82 (relative to labeling for maple syrup) requested the bill be deemed “Inexpedient to Legislate,” and the public hearing lasted less than one minute.
On June 9, the NH Supreme Court released the long awaited ruling in the case of City of Keene v. James Cleaveland, et al (aka Robin Hood of Keene). It looks like Robin Hood of Keene is heading back to court for the request for injunctive relief, the rest of the case was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Here are three relevant portions of the decision:
Affirmed:
“[W]e conclude that the trial court correctly determined that enforcing the City’s tortious interference with contractual relations claim would violate the respondents’ First Amendment rights. Given this conclusion, we need not reach the respondents’ argument that the tortious interference claim is also barred by the State Constitution. (more…)
The text below was sent to me at pete@copblock.org. It previously been sent to a number of individuals – all with email extensions of “ci.keene.nh.us” and to area media.
The author begins the message:
This is to let you know effective IMMEDIATELY our group of citizens intends to force the City of Keene and its employees to comply with federal and state laws that up until this point have been willfully ignored by high ranking officials of the City of Keene.
It’s shared here as it’s relevant to many here in Keene. I defaulted to redacting the name of the person who sent it to me, out of respect for their privacy.
Some people, including you, have claimed that I’m “not libertarian” because I called for the censure of a State Representative who stated that she wishes to restrict freedoms in an attempt to target a specific group of people. You called this a “witch hunt to deny free speech to a duly elected representative.” You don’t specify how a censure denies anyone’s free speech. Censure is defined as, to “express severe disapproval of (someone or something), typically in a formal statement.” When a legislative body censures someone, they are formally expressing disapproval of a statement or action of an elected official. There is no removal of that person’s freedom of speech, simply a formal statement that the body disapproves of what was said. Impeachment is “a formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office.” Again, nothing about removing free speech in that definition either! [NH RSA’s do not define either term, so I am using the definitions from Google] (more…)
