Our View - Saturday

STATE LAW TAKES FREE SPEECH
Activists must clear hurdles to voice protests

Free speech means free speech for all, not for just some. It means free speech for people with blogs and printing presses, and free speech for those who distribute handwritten brochures. It's a simple concept, though not for Colorado politicians and bureaucrats.

When this newspaper, or any other, publishes an editorial promoting or opposing a political issue, it's the view of an editorial board comprised of four or more people. It costs money, far more than $200, to publish a single editorial. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees The Gazette the right to do this, just as it guarantees this right to a blogger, a street pamphleteer or the desktop publisher of a newsletter.

So why is it that Karen Sampson was told she couldn't distribute fliers and yard signs promoting a small group's opposition to plans by the city of Parker to annex their neighborhood? Have state politicians found a way to suspend the First Amendment for some, but not others? Apparently they believe they have.

Shortly after Sampson and a few of her neighbors began distributing their fliers and signs, supporters of the annexation filed a complaint against them. The complaint was that Sampson and company hadn't registered as an "issue committee" with the secretary of state before initiating their campaign.

In Colorado, it turns out, groups of two or more people who want to speak out about a specific political issue must register as an "issue committee" if they spend more than $200. The state has a 92-page manual that explains how to comply with the law.
"We had no clue about these laws or how to navigate through the process," Sampson told the Denver Post. "We spent more defending ourselves than fighting annexation."

And that's probably the real intent of the law, truth be known: to stifle free speech by throwing up red tape that makes it cumbersome to protest. It's a law we must ignore, for it's a law that breaks the law.

Sampson is suing the secretary of state on grounds that the law violates the First Amendment. Of course it does. It seems unthinkable that U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch will see it any other way.

The Matsch ruling is due within weeks. For now, however, the law stands.

Which brings us back to newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, blogs, and countless other media sources throughout Colorado. Thousands of media types rail for or against political issues each and every day. The views espoused typically represent the efforts of two or more people, and typically cost more than $200 to produce and distribute. And when it comes to free speech, and exactly who has it, the Supreme Court of the United States has made no distinction between the New York Times and the lone pamphleteer. Thus, there's no lawful distinction between the First Amendment rights of Sampson's group and the editorial boards of Colorado's largest newspapers. None.

The law of the land says this: "make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." What part of that law do our state lawmakers fail to understand?

ANOTHER AFFRONT TO FREE SPEECH

Boulder Democrat Alice Madden, majority leader of the Colorado House of Representatives, wants to stifle free speech and the ability of citizens to petition issues onto the election ballot.

"It's a shot across the bow at these mercenary-type groups that work across the country," Madden said, as quoted in an Associated Press story.

No, it's shot across the bow of a Colorado ballot initiative Madden doesn't like. It's a deliberate effort to reduce, not enhance, citizen participation in the process of making law.

Madden obviously is mad about the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, a ballot measure promoted by Ward Connerly, a conservative black civil rights activist from California. Connerly considers affirmative action and similar measures by other names, which give preference based on race, as being racist and insulting to people of color. He has hired signature gatherers to roam Colorado, asking citizens on the street: "Are you against discrimination?" Those who answer "yes" are asked to sign the petition, which contains a very simple statement:

"The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."

Unfortunately, some who have signed have later complained. Opponents of the measure have coached them to claim they were misled into believing the measure would bolster affirmative action and the like, rather than forbid it. They've complained that those gathering the signatures were paid, and sometimes came from out of state. What difference does it make where petition gatherers come from? Since when have state lines been used to contain political speech?

Madden's bill would require petition organizers to hire only Colorado residents to collect signatures - a clear violation of the right to free association. It would require organizers to report how much they paid signature gatherers, a violation of privacy. It would require petition organizers to pledge that they told signature gatherers not to lie or mislead signers. In a free society, though, none of that matters.

The wording on a petition is all that matters. It's pretty simple: If you don't understand it, don't sign. A signature on a petition is like a signature on a contract, or the casting of a vote. It doesn't matter who asked you to sign, where they're from, or what they said to you before you signed. Read it, and then either sign or decline. We don't need the nanny state guiding our pen.