Free Speech
Sure, talk is cheap. But the right to talk is priceless. Here’s what Goldwater is doing to defend that right.
Most Americans probably assume they can gather with friends and neighbors to say whatever they want about politics to whoever is willing to listen. They presume that the First Amendment protects their right to get together and buy yard signs, publish newsletters, or pay for radio or TV ads urging people to vote for or against a candidate -- and to do so free of government interference.
Arizonans have the right to bear arms nearly everywhere in this state without having to register anyone or anything with the government. Likewise, as mighty as the pen might be, no one should be forced to register themselves (or their pen) before communicating with elected officials about legislative reform. Yet, Arizona has done just that through its overreaching lobbying laws.
Pharmaceutical sales are coming under criticism based on what appear to be legitimate but rare abuses of pharmaceutical salespeople promising more from a drug than they should and doctors allowing themselves to be pressured into prescribing. Unfortunately, these isolated incidents are being held up as evidence of the need for vast new government intrusion and regulation of the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing practices. While certainly well intentioned, these efforts are likely to negatively affect doctors and patients.
Case Background
Does the government have the right to deny business permits because neighbors complain? The Arizona Supreme Court said no in its ruling on the Goldwater Institute’s case, Coleman v. Mesa.
As often happens during election season, the media has been up in arms about “secret funds” being spent by independent groups on messages meant to support or oppose candidates.
This month marks Justice Clarence Thomas’ 20th anniversary on the U.S. Supreme Court. Emerging from one of the most tumultuous confirmation battles in history, Justice Thomas has become one of the greatest Supreme Court justices in the Court's history.
When Arizona resident Mark Reed planned to vote while wearing a “Tea Party” t-shirt, government officials wanted to keep him out of the polls. The Goldwater Institute argued that Tea Party shirts were constitutionally protected free speech, no different than shirts promoting unions or other advocacy groups. The courts agreed, requiring election officials to use uniform, objective standards without violating the constitution.
By Patrick McNamara
February 6, 2008
Following a cycle of bad press that even began to draw national attention, the Oro Valley Town Council decided at a special session last Wednesday to make public a legal opinion the town sought from an outside law firm.
Town legal officials asked the opinion of the Tucson law offices of DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin and Lacy in regard to whether or not a local Web blog should register with the town clerk as a political action committee.
A criminal case against Phoenix New Times fell apart Friday amid a crush of public outrage and admissions that a special county prosecutor made serious mistakes.
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas dismissed all charges against the free weekly newspaper less than 24 hours after two New Times owners were arrested for publishing details of a grand-jury subpoena that demanded the Internet records of any person who had visited the newspaper's Web site since 2004.