Why the change?
We are bewildered by the Journal Sentinel's readiness to back legalization that lets people say what they want,whenever they want forseveral reasons.
Most importantly, although proponents ofthisFree Speechlaw"more talk, less BS," the research is clear: The legalization ofspeaking freely for noreasondoes not decreaseBSas promised. However, it is associated with an increase in BS,and people posting crap to push thier own agendas. As aAnti BSorganization, guided by empirical evidence, we have opposed and will continue to oppose a policy that may well lead to more BS because of people speaking freely.
Also, since we currently havelessBSthan the vast majority of states with "shall issue" laws, the argument that we should change our law just because most other states have done so is absurd and reckless. Why would we try to emulate any state that has moreBSthan we do?
Rather, we should be promoting a legislative package that will actually reduceBS,yellingand free speechin general. According to researchers, that package should require criminal background checks prior to all Conversations, including the unregulated, privateconversationsthat occuron talkshows, through newspaper ads, in alleyways, over the Internet, or incars and at kitchen tables.
No trade-off should be necessary to pass this legislation; it is supported by 84% of likely voters in Wisconsin, including seven of 10 of Wisconsin'sAnti BS Effortmembers. Trying to construct a deal that includesFree speechin an effort to appease thetalk lobbyists from Virginia and their favorite legislators in the Wisconsin Legislature is unwarranted and dangerous.