In a post at The
Atlantic ;that I initially took to be a joke because it is
headlined "Michael Bloomberg, Tireless Champion of Civil
Liberties," Wendy Kaminer
praises the New York mayor's support for the First Amendment,
which she suggests outweighs the paternalistic meddling exemplified
by his widely derided
restrictions on soda servings. Kaminer is right that Bloomberg
has taken admirable stances on freedom of speech:
When the MTA [Metropolitan Transportation Authority] was under
court order to accept a series of provocative anti-Muslim ads in
subway stations, Bloomberg ;shrugged:
"I assume [they'll] do what the courts ordered them to do." [He
also
noted that "as Americans, we tolerate things that we find
despicable."]
When other big-city, pro-gay-rights mayors threatened to bar
Chick-fil-A from their domains, Bloomberg ;schooled ;them
on free speech: "You really don't want to ask political beliefs or
religious beliefs before you issue a permit. That's just not
government's job." [Katherine Mangu-Ward noted his commendable
remarks
here.]
When 10 members of the New York City Council threatened to
withdraw funding from Brooklyn College because it dared to sponsor
a discussion of boycotts and sanctions against Israel,
Bloomberg ;snorted, ;"If
you want to go to a university where the government decides what
kind of subjects are fit for discussion, I suggest you apply to a
school in North Korea."
Bloomberg took a principled stand in each of these cases,
defending people's right to say things with which he personally
disagreed. Regarding the MTA
ads (which actually condemned "jihad," as opposed to Muslims
generally), his attitude was a notable improvement on the position
taken by his immediate predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani, who famously
asked the MTA to remove a ;New York ;magazine ad
that (gently) mocked him from its buses. The result was a 1997
federal appeals court
decision rejecting such content-based restrictions, which was
cited by the federal judge who
overturned the MTA's refusal to run the anti-jihad ads. Those
ads, by the way, were sponsored by the American Freedom Defense
Initiative, a group that conspicuously opposed construction of the
so-called Ground Zero mosque. That was another First Amendment
controversy in which Bloomberg distinguished himself, offering a
stirring
defense of religious freedom.
In light of these examples, "Michael Bloomberg, Defender of the
First Amendment" would have been an apt title for Kaminer's post.
But even if you don't count the right to control what goes into
your body as a civil liberty, ;"Michael Bloomberg, Tireless
Champion of Civil Liberties" goes way too far. As Kaminer concedes,
Bloomberg has not been a very good friend to the rest of the Bill
of Rights. A founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and a
funder of pro-gun-control candidates, he has never met a
firearm restriction he did not like, which certainly casts doubt on
his commitment to defending the Second Amendment. Nor is he a fan
of the Fifth Amendment's protections for property rights, to judge
by his vigorous
defense of broad eminent domain powers. But the biggest problem
with any attempt to portray Bloomberg as a champion of civil
liberties is his obvious lack of enthusiasm for the Fourth
Amendment.
Bloomberg, despite his own youthful enjoyment of cannabis, has
presided over a huge
surge in arrests for "public display" of marijuana, many of
them
illegal because the pot came into open view only as a result of
police intervention. After Gov. Andrew Cuomo took on the issue last
year, ;Bloomberg suddenly
voiced support for decriminalizing public display, which he
falsely claimed would be consistent with current police practices.
And as Kaminer notes, civil libertarians "deplore
his ;defense ;of repressive stop-and-frisk policies." That
defense has been notable not only because Bloomberg always comes
down on the side of more police power but because the billionaire
Harvard MBA
dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as a pointy-headed
pontificator insulated from the reality of the streets. Bloomberg
implicitly concedes that New
York cops routinely stop and frisk people without the "reasonable
suspicion" that the Supreme Court has said is required by the
Fourth Amendment. He just doesn't think such legal niceties matter
when you're fighting crime. "Tireless Champion of Civil Liberties"?
Not so much.
So is Kaminer kidding after all? Her hyperbole may have been a
deliberate attempt to lure outraged Bloomberg critics, in which
case I totally fell for it. … Read More
↧