OFFLINE

Maryland Robocall Conviction Puts Political Dirty Tricksters On Notice
by Frank James
NPR News

Election-day dirty tricksters be forewarned: getting caught trying in a voter-suppression scheme can draw you a prison term, at least in Maryland.

That's one take away message from Tuesday's conviction of the man who served as campaign manager for the effort of Maryland's former Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr.'s to regain the governorship.

A Baltimore jury found Paul Schurick guilty of election fraud on state charges related to 2010 voter-suppression robocalls meant to keep some African American voters, predominantly Democrats, away from the polls on election day.


As NPR's Pam Fessler reported on All Things Considered Monday, the calls made on the afternoon of Election Day last year to black voters essentially suggested there was no need for them to vote since the Democratic Gov, Martin O'Malley was so far ahead he had essentially already won the race.

As Pam reported for the NPR newscast:

"The calls were made in areas with large concentrations of African American voters. Schurick says he was hoping to spur potential Ehrlich voters to come to the polls. His attorney says he's planning to appeal on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the calls are protected free speech."

The trial jury didn't buy the defense lawyers' First Amendment theory of the case. Nor did they accept the notion that Schurick was actually trying to get black voters to come out to vote for his Republican boss.

An excerpt from Luke Broadwater's Baltimore Sun report:

    "Jurors said they didn't accept arguments that the call was protected free speech.

    " 'Your free speech does have certain limits,' said Niomi Rosenberg, juror No. 3. 'Confusion to suppress votes is a very big problem.' "

Do you think these tactics are protected under the First Amendment?  Why or why not?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Do you think these tactics are protected under the First Amendment?  Why or why not?

This to me sounds like plain old fraud - a case of someone trying to mislead someone else in order to gain some sort of advantage. Just because it was political advantage as opposed to monetary advantage, how does it suddenly get protected under the 1st amendment? If the guy was calling around in order to fraudulently elicit money from these people, would it still be covered under the 1st? If so, should every single court case involving fraud/libel be thrown out because the person was entitled to say what they wanted under the 1st amendment?

Me not being an american and all, maybe I have a different take on it, but to me "Congress shall make no law......abridging the freedom of speech" means you can say what you want, and the govt can't censor you or stop you saying it, but it doesn't say anything about what happens after you say it - if you say something that could have consequences to yourself, you should be prepared to face those consequences, otherwise don't say it.  If you lie about something and get caught, on your head be it, don't go trying to hide behind "free speech".