"The notion of Congress looking into or investigating how a medium of communication decides what to say threatens on its face First Amendment rights."

Said Floyd Abrams, the big First Amendment lawyer, after John Thune, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, called on Facebook to respond to claims that it discriminates against conservatives as it determines which news articles to feature on the "trending" list that appears on users' Facebook pages.

Thune said:  "If there’s any level of subjectivity associated with it, or if, as reports have suggested that there might have been, an attempt to suppress conservative stories or keep them from trending and get other stories out there, I think it’s important for people to know that. That’s just a matter of transparency and honesty, and there shouldn’t be any attempt to mislead the American public.”

Yeah, but it's none of the Senate's business! Thune should be embarrassed.

"The title of the proposed amendment... 'Restore Democracy to the American People'... is nothing but a perversion of the English language."

Said the venerable First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. The proposed constitutional amendment is designed to overrule the Supreme Court's free speech doctrine that limits what legislatures can do to control spending on political campaigns.

The notion that democracy has already been lost, as we begin what will obviously be a hard fought election season in which virtually anything can and will be said, could be dismissed as rather typical Washington rhetorical overkill. But the notion that democracy would be advanced – saved, “restored” – by limiting speech is nothing but a perversion of the English language. It brings to mind George Orwell’s observation, in his enduring essay “Politics and the English Language,” that “[i]n our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible,” and that the word “democracy,” in particular, “has several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with each other” and “is often used in a consciously dishonest way.”  So let me say in the most direct manner that it is deeply, profoundly, obviously undemocratic to limit speech about who to elect to public office.

IN THE COMMENTS: Tyrone Slothrop said "Ted Cruz was similarly awesome yesterday":

Glittering: "assault" or "wonderfully fabulous way to protest"?

Diane Anderson-Minshall, executive editor of The Advocate, the gay news magazine, says throwing metallic flecks in someone's face is a "wonderfully fabulous way to protest": "It's peaceful and it doesn’t hurt anybody. But it does get a really important point across in a fun way."

Newt Gingrich, who's been on the receiving end of this supposedly "fun" protest, says: "Glitter bombing is clearly an assault and should be treated as such... When someone reaches into a bag and throws something on you, how do you know if it is acid or something that stains permanently or something that can blind you? People have every right to their beliefs but no right to assault others.”

The NYT tries to get a legal opinion by asking First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams:

"I don’t think you’d get much disagreement that like so much else in the law, it’s all a matter of degree... Touching someone’s body can be criminal. But it’s awfully unlikely that there would be a prosecution if it’s just a bit of glitter. But in theory, the more that’s dropped, the more likely is prosecution."

That's a pragmatic assessment from the point of view of police and prosecutors, not an opinion about whether it is a crime. Did Abrams address the point of view of the recipient of the attack (as Gingrich did, above)? If someone rushes at you and makes gestures of attack, but it turns out to be only glitter, you still have the fear, and you (or your bodyguards) don't know what is about to happen. Then maybe it's funny to laugh at the person who felt the fear or overreacted. And there they are covered in glitter. Ha ha.

This is like the childhood game of taking a swat at someone, without hitting him, and then hooting "You flinched!" In that childhood game — is it still played? — if the person flinched, you then have the right to punch him in the arm. Hard. But imagine adults playing with each other that way. Or would life work better? Justice Bradley charges right up to Justice Prosser, gets in his face, with fists flying but not touching him, and he flinches/touches. Well, then Justice Bradley immediately has the right to punch Prosser — hard — in the arm. And that's the end of it. Instead... oh, lord!... the troubles we have in Wisconsin!

(And here's that thread from last month where we talked about pie-throwing and where, in the comments, there was some extensive discussion of glittering.)

"Very few people are really supportive of free speech, whether they're liberals or conservatives..."

"... The First Amendment for many years played the role, when it triumphed in the courts, of protecting the speech of people who tended to be on the left—so it was minorities or the powerless in our society. The liberals on the Supreme Court today would still protect those people and their rights... What's changed is that conservatives found some causes which they have used to vindicate genuine First Amendment rights."

So said the great First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams — in an interview, a year ago, with James Taranto, who just emailed me, a propos of my blog post today, "When did the left turn against free speech?"