The Freedom Bulletin

Massachusetts might have a lot of questions on the 2012 ballot. On Wednesday, 23 ballot initiatives passed Attorney General Martha Coakley’s review and now will need to get 68,911 signatures by this November and (unless the legislature takes action) 11,485 more by next July.

They include:

• Giving people 3 days to cancel car purchases
• Expanding the do-not-call law to include charitable organizations that use telemarketers
• Amending the state constitution to require legislators to ensure that all people have “comprehensive, affordable, equitably financed” health insurance (this won’t appear until the 2014 ballot because constitutional amendments require the approval of 25% of the state legislature two sessions in a row)
• Limiting annual increases in water and sewer rates to 2.5%
• Legalizing medical marijuana (website)
• Legalizing assisted suicide for people with terminal illnesses (website)
• Creating a Citizens’ 9/11 Investigation Commission
• Requiring car manufacturers to share information with repair shops that they need to repair vehicles (website)
• Banning car insurance companies from setting prices based on credit score, education, or occupation
• Banning certain types of fishing equipment that could endanger whales
• Establishing consequences for teacher evaluations (website)
• Expanding the bottle deposit law to include water, juice, and other drinks
• Repealing the state’s individual health insurance mandate (website)
• Allowing grocery stores to sell wine
• Requiring the RMV to notify drivers, when suspending or revoking their licenses, of the exact laws they are accused of violating
• Legalizing secretly recording public officials who are performing their official duties in a public place

Among the initiatives that did not make it through were one to develop three casinos, one to require competitive bidding for energy contracts, and one to require people to provide photo ID in order to vote. The latter question’s backer, Olivier Kozlowski (and radio host Michael Graham) criticized the AG’s decision, saying, ”In Massachusetts, the cheapest ID you can get from the Registry is $25. If there’s someone out there who doesn’t need an ID for anything else in their entire life other than voting, then their ‘freedom of elections’ has been infringed upon, under the Massachusetts constitution.” I actually agree with the AG on this one. A similar ID requirement was upheld by the Supreme Court in Indiana, but photo IDs are free there. To charge $25 for an ID and to require an ID in order to vote is to charge $25 to vote. While I understand why people want to make voter fraud more difficult, requiring people to purchase an item in order to vote is tantamount to a poll tax, and this simply infringes upon the right to vote.

Sources: Mass.gov, MassLive.com, Boston Globe

Today was the deadline for ballot initiatives to be filed in Massachusetts for the 2012 election. There are some interesting initiatives that are aiming to get on the ballot:

• The Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance wants to legalize medical marijuana for people suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, or other serious illnesses. People would need permission from a doctor, and they could only get marijuana from treatment centers that would be regulated by the state Department of Public Health.
• The Fatherhood Coalition filed an initiative to abolish Chapter 209A, a law which allows people to get restraining orders without proof, of even an allegation, of wrongdoing. Designed to protect victims of domestic abuse, the law can also be used unjustly by people who are merely mad at their spouse or want to kick them out of the house.
• Massachusetts Citizens for Life is trying to abolish the state’s individual mandate, which requires all residents to have health insurance. I am glad to see this because, while the national individual mandate is the subject of a lot of controversy and criticism, the state one hasn’t been nearly as much.
• David Nunez, a Colorado casino developer, submitted a petition to allow three casinos in Massachusetts.
• Stand For Children wants teachers’ merit to be weighed above seniority in hiring, layoff, and transfer policies.
• Plus, there were 26 other petitions filed, for a total of 31.

To make it onto the ballot, each question must be certified by Attorney General Martha Coakley. Then, organizers must collect the signatures of 68,911 registered voters by November, as well as another 11,485 signatures by next July.

August 4 update: How did I miss this one? The Death With Dignity Act, which would allow people with terminal illnesses to obtain drugs to end their lives, is trying to get on the ballot as well. In my opinion, this would definitely be a step in the right direction.

As you probably know by now if you haven’t been living under a rock, Craigslist decided to take down its “adult services” section in response to pressure from 17 states’ attorneys general. In the aftermath of Philip Markoff‘s suicide, one of the most vocal critics of the site’s adult services section has been Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. She also wants to repeal the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), which shields websites from liability for things that third parties post.

In my opinion, Craigslist was not legally or morally obligated to remove its “adult” ads, and the attorneys general are acting like a bunch of paternalistic, sexist bullies.

First of all, the CDA is a good law. In addition to protecting Craigslist from liability for thinly-veiled prostitution ads, the CDA also protects sites like Youtube from being sued when people post copyright-infringing videos, and forums from being sued for users’ defamatory comments. This principle just makes sense. People are responsible for their own actions, so they should be held responsible for all of and only what they post themselves. For large, popular websites, it is unreasonable to expect administrators to be able to monitor everything that gets posted.

Additionally, the attitude of Coakley and the other attorneys general is sexist and insulting. In a joint letter, they write about the “women and children who will continue to be victimized.” Although probably not common, it’s certainly possible for men to be forced into prostitution, or even for women to be the perpetrators.

Furthermore, the attorneys general fail to distinguish between prostitution, an activity that is illegal but which some people choose to participate in, and human trafficking, which is when people are forced into prostitution. Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal, for example, said: “Prostitution is not a victimless crime. Human trafficking results in tragedies to children and others.” I don’t necessarily think prostitution should be legal, but everyone should recognize that there is a difference between choosing to do something and being forced to do it. Blumenthal seems unable to tell the difference.

Finally, the bullying by the attorneys general makes Craigslist, and by extension the Internet, worse. I don’t regularly use Craigslist, but it has a certain appeal that comes from its simplicity, freedom, and anonymity. In the age of cookies, behavioral tracking, and intrusive personalization, it is great that a site exists where people can simply post almost anything they want with little or no moderation. Last year, in response to pressure from 39 attorneys general, Craigslist began to require personally-identifying information for adult services ads. Although this might make the site safer, it detracts from the anarchy that makes Craigslist what it is.

In short, Craigslist is not doing anything wrong by merely failing to remove illegal ads that third parties post. In the vast majority of cases, people who post ads or respond to them do so because they have considered the risks involved and have decided that the benefits are worth it. To take away an option from people merely because it is dangerous insults them by implying that they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, and harms them by denying them the ability to do something that they want to do. Although a small number of people are forced into prostitution against their will, and the existence of Craigslist might make their victimization slightly easier, not all prostitution involves force, and not all adult services ads involve prostitution. It is never okay to punish many people for the actions of a few.

In the eloquent words of the Cato Institute’s Jim Harper: “The cost to free speech in the AGs’ badgering of Craigslist vastly outweighs the infinitesimal crime-prevention benefit.”

I wish our attorneys general would stop bullying harmless websites like Craigslist, and start standing up for people’s liberty against oppressive federal laws like, say, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment or the health care non-reform law.

Since Scott Brown’s victory on Tuesday, many people - such as Anna North at Jezebel.com, James Carroll at the Daily Beast, Monica Hesse at the Washington Post, and Jeanne Cummings and Erika Lovely at Politico – have said that basically, Martha Coakley lost because voters are sexist.

I disagree. I have never heard or read of anyone saying that they voted for Brown because he is a man. There’s just no evidence to support these claims.

Additionally, this article claims that it was sexist of Brown’s supporters to “cheer on the notion of Coakley being raped.” While it is certainly horrible to wish rape on someone, it isn’t sexist, exactly. Men can be raped, just as women can. Coakley’s supporters could just as easily have cheered about Brown being raped, and it would have been just as classless. It’s sexist to say that wishing rape on someone is sexist, since that claim seems to be based on the assumption that only women can be raped. Real feminists believe that men and women are equal and should be treated that way. Both men and women can be the victims or the perpetrators of rape, and it’s unacceptable to wish rape on anyone of any gender.

Plus, there has been letter after letter in the Boston Globe this week saying that the people elected Brown because of “stupidity,” “foolishness,” “personality, misinformation, and fear.” One person goes as far as to write, “although Scott Brown won the election, there is a large chunk of Bay Staters he doesn’t seem to represent.”

Well, duh! That would be the same chunk of Bay Staters that is currently represented by the other 11 of our 12 representatives in Congress. How do you think we non-Democrats have felt for the past few decades that we have gone with no representation in Congress? Right now, 52% of the people are represented by one person, and 47% are represented by 11 people. When it gets to be 6 and 6, then the Democrats can start complaining.

Why can’t people accept that maybe Brown won the election because people like his views better and think he’ll do a better job? Why can’t they accept that people might be fed up with one-party control of our state and the country, or opposed to the health bill that was created through bribery and forces everyone to buy health insurance? Why must people attribute Brown’s victory to sexism, ignorance, and fear? Maybe Brown won because he deserved to.

If you need another reason not to vote for Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate tomorrow, in addition to her political views and the fact that she called Curt Schilling a Yankees fan, she has also put clearly innocent people in jail on at least two occasions.

According to this article by Ann Coulter, in 2001, when Coakley was Middlesex County District Attorney, Gerald Amirault, who had been convicted of child molestation in 1986 despite there being no evidence to support the charges, was granted clemency by the Massachusetts parole board. Governor Jane Swift was going to go along with their recommendation, but Coakley enthusiastically lobbied Swift to keep Amirault in prison, and she agreed. Because of Coakley, Amirault remained in prison for three more years.

Additionally, in 2003, Harvard grad student Alexander Pring-Wilson was walking down the street when he was attacked by two drug dealers, both with criminal records. In the ensuing struggle, Pring-Wilson fatally stabbed one of his attackers with the utility knife that he always carried. Middlesex D.A. Coakley charged Pring-Wilson with first-degree murder for his act of self-defense. He was held without bail and convicted of voluntary manslaughter, but then was awarded a new trial and eventually pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter. Even if you think that Pring-Wilson acted wrongly, which I don’t, it is inappropriate to charge someone with first-degree murder for a non-premeditated death that occurred in the middle of a fight.

So, there you have it – two examples of people unjustly put in prison by Coakley. Contrary to the opinion of the Coakley supporter that I encountered at yesterday’s rally, a D.A.’s job is not to put innocent people in jail.