Free For All or is it Free for Some But Not All?

One of today's top stories on Channel 4 involved the alleged battery on an abortion protester. It was not the story in particular that opened our Eye; it was, however, the statements given to Channel 4. The Eye could not help but question the hypocrisy of the statement of one of APD's Public Information Information Officers, Officer Robert Gibbs. This is what Channel 4 quoted:

"APD officer Robert Gibbs said ultimately, it comes down to Shaver's right to free speech.

"He was exercising his free speech that we are all allowed to with the First Amendment. That doesn't mean you
can get up and hit somebody or batter somebody," Gibbs said."

This comes as a surprise to The Eye. It was only recently that administrators told supervisors that Officers would face discipline if they made remarks that were deemed inappropriate or put APD in disrepute. So does this mean that City administrators can now dictate who is allowed free speech and who is allowed what we could call "monitored, censored, and stifled speech"? Does the Constitution afford free speech to everyone, except law enforcement officers?

The administrators seem so afraid of officers voicing their own, independent opinion, that there are reports that social media websites are being monitored constantly in order to document the postings made by the officers. In risk of sounding repetitive, The Eye has still been unable to find the footnote of the Constitution that does not allow law enforcement officers to voice their opinion, ON their OWN time, not ON DUTY, even when not representing APD in any way. The threat of discipline (possibly including termination) via the means of intimidation, seems like the current "normal route" of business for the top administrators.

So, please enlighten The Eye. Which will it be? Is "everyone" protected by the First Amendment, or is it just a benefit for those lucky enough to be hand chosen to be protected?

Want to see for yourself? Click here.

Lessons in Freedom

For a country whose founding principle was liberty, it's amazing how often that very principle gets thrown in history's dustbin in the name of some greater good. Sometimes these transgressions are obvious - like rounding up Japanese Americans during World War II. Other times they are more insidious and subtle. Such is the case with most campaign finance and reporting laws.

Wednesday's Albuquerque Journal ran a story about a group of non-profit organizations who are suing the Secretary of State alleging that the state is curtailing their freedom of speech by requiring them to disclose a list of donors to their various organizations. These are the same non-profit organizations whose political activities were called into question by a number of incumbent Democratic officials who were defeated due to these non-profit's unlawful campaign activities (read it here).

Registering with the state would violate their First Amendment rights, states a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.

The lawsuit was filed by New Mexico Youth Organized, which is an arm of the Center for Civic Policy; and Southwest Organizing Project.

The groups mailed out glossy fliers to voters earlier this year that cast a negative light on a group of mostly veteran incumbents. All but one legislator was up for re-election, and five of the eight targeted in the fliers were ultimately defeated at the polls.

- ABQ Journal (Subscription)

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that money is a form of speech. The donations received by these affiliated non-profit political action committees could be and should be considered an expression of support by those who wrote the checks. The question is - does the State of New Mexico have the legal authority to require registration and the disclosure of the names of these political organizations' benefactors? The Secretary of State and the Attorney General seem to think so.

What concerns us is that should the courts rule in favor of SWOP and NMYO, they would by definition extend rights to non-profit political organizations that the rest of us don't enjoy. Why should a group of political operatives be able to hide their supporters beneath a non-profit corporate shell, when private corporations, grass roots organizations, and individuals are required to register with the state and to report the sources of their funding?

As is often the case, the Southwest Organizing Project and New Mexico Youth Organized are not fighting for free speech they're fighting for extended rights that benefit only their cause. In our opinion, you cannot separate the two. If campaign finance law requires the registration of political organizations and disclosure of donors and assuming that law is indeed constitutional, then it should apply to everyone. If on the other hand, New Mexico law is abridging the free speech rights of non-profit political organizations then it is also abridging the free speech rights of every organization and individual.

(Sidebar)
Don't even get us going on McCain/Feingold. If you want to know why Republicans stayed home this last election, look no further than this misguided attempt at keeping money out of elections. The result has been some of the most expensive elections in history and the rise of 527s.
(End Sidebar)

Freedom is an all encompassing concept that abhors special exceptions and favoritism. Each of us is guaranteed the right to free speech in all of its forms. Extended freedoms should not be conveyed upon a group simply because they file some paperwork with the IRS. If state law is a violation of anyone's free speech rights, then it's a violation of everyone's free speech rights. A narrow application of liberty is no different than tyranny.

Looking for The Eye

Our Eyes on the Inside tell us that the almost constant stream of information coming from the city about Tortillagate - which was dutifully posted on this site yesterday - has steamed some high ranking APD officials (Deputy Chief Castro you know who you are). So much so that they've assigned Captain Dave Depies the task of finding out who we are. (We addressed the issue of Anonymity here.)

We want to remind those on the 5th floor that investigating individuals for political and not criminal reasons is illegal, not to mention a serious misuse of department resources. Freedom of speech, particularly political speech, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers believed that we should have the absolute right to criticize those that govern. Like it or not, Mayor Marty, APD, the City Council, and every other department fall into that category.

It's this type of stuff that makes us hoppin' mad! You may work for a politician, you may answer to a politician, but you are not his personal geschtapo charged with investigating the Almighty Marty's or your own detractors. That's a breach of public trust, and a waste of your time and our money. We would recommend that instead of trying to hide your dirty laundry... clean it up and start investigating crime.

On that note, if you are one of our readers down at City Hall, be aware that using a city owned computer through a city owned and operated Internet gateway, your activity can be easily traced by the city's IT department. We would recommend that you view the Eye at home on your own computer and through your own Internet gateway, particularly when posting comments that Big Brother (or Little Brother) doesn't want to see.