Mississippi was the last state in the U.S. to feature the Confederate emblem on its flag. The state adopted a new flag on June 2020.
Picture: Mississippi state flag 1894-2020 (credit: Walmart).
A Glimpse into the Constitutional Problem
Biden answers: “They’re killing people,” when asked about “misinformation” on platforms like Facebook. (Reclaim the Net – confirmed by multiple sources)
For killing people the penalty may be death in 27 states and the federal government.
“You have made a choice to allow them to continue to spread lethal lies.” (U.S. senator Schatz to Facebook on covid)
The “free flow of ideas” is in fact the vehicle of “lethal lies,” so it was a silly mistake to invent free speech and the First Amendment. To combat lethal lies you need consistent enforcement of speech repression.
Let me say it straight out: Lethal lies are lies that kill people (see Joe Biden: “They’re killing people.”) For killing people the penalty may be death (in 27 states and the federal government).
Welcome on Board
Facebook oversight board member [Danish former prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt] says free speech “is not an absolute human right.” (Reclaim the Net)
The irony of her statement (not “in” her statement as she seems completely devoid of a sense of irony) is that a private company such as Facebook does not under the First Amendment have to care about the status of speech as a right (of others). As its lawyers often stress, it is Facebook’s very free speech right to refuse some kinds of speech on their platform, so if free speech is “not an absolute human right,” then this is bad news for Facebook because it means they have been censoring thousands, perhaps millions of people based on what they think is an absolute human right (to do so) but is not.
In fact this former prime minister of Denmark (who sits at the oversight board of a Delaware, United States, incorporated company without knowing much of American law, obviously) only parrots and repeats the mantra of the European Court of Human Rights, which balances rights such as free speech on the one hand and personality rights on the other hand.
But the same holds true in U.S., as in its libel law: not all speech is protected. The First Amendment does not allow you to defame someone, that is, you cannot, in the case of public figures for instance, publish false defamatory statements about public figures (but the latter must prove the statements are false, not you that the statements are true, and public figures must also demonstrate that you acted knowingly or in reckless disregard of the truth, this is the rather stringent “actual malice standard”).
As Donald Trump’s lawsuit against big-tech platforms is mentioned in Reclaim the Net’s article, let me add that, although Trump is suing for civil liberties (breach of First Amendment, especially after recent admission by the Biden administration that it was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation”), he may sue for libel as well. When Twitter flagged all his tweets and then banned him to the effect that people should think he is a compulsive liar†, that was an attack on his good name by statement of fact and therefore falls under the category of defamation. That he might win a libel suit is not granted though because 1/ he was one of the most prominent public figures at the time (actual malice standard) and 2/ the truth or falsity of the facts in question is still under scrutiny (forensic audits).
†Accusing someone of lying belongs among the eight “sensitive categories” that make statements defamatory on their face: “#3. Impugn another’s honesty or integrity.” (Neil J. Rosini, The Practical Guide to Libel Law, Praeger 1991, p. 9)
By parroting the European Court of Human Rights, the former prime minister of Denmark proves how silly she really is. When the European Court says free speech is “not an absolute human right,” it means governments can limit free speech in consideration of other rights. But the thing is, Facebook is not a government, it’s a private business that is free to refuse some speech and accept other on its platform unless the law says otherwise or government entanglement in the business can be proven.
Parroting the European Court of Human Rights at and from the oversight board of a Delaware incorportared business is preposterous on so many grounds, I don’t know if you can imagine.
Group Defamation Is Nonexistent in Law
Defamatory statements made about a large class of people cannot be interpreted to refer necessarily to any individual. And only individuals, not classes of people, can sue for damage to personal reputation. This principle has been established in a number of cases, including one in which a class action was brought on behalf of 600,000,000 Muslims to recover damages for airing the film Death of a princess. The group found the film, which depicted the public execution of a Saudi Arabian princess for adultery, insulting and defamatory to the Islamic religion. The claim was dismissed because the aim of defamation law is to protect individuals, and if a group is sufficiently large that a statement cannot reasonably be interpreted to defame individual group members, First Amendment rights would be impaired by permitting individuals to sue.Neil J. Rosini, The Practical Guide to Libel Law, Praeger 1991, p. 32.
The case alluded to is Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour Faissal Fahd Al Talal v. Fanning, 506 F. Supp. 186, 187 (N.D. Cal. 1980)
In this decision the court stressed that such actionable group libel (as provided for by hate speech laws around the world) “would render meaningless the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment”:
“If plaintiffs were allowed to proceed with this claim, it could invite any number of vexatious lawsuits and seriously interfere with public discussion of issues, or groups, which are in the public eye. Statements about a religious, ethnic, or political group could invite thousands of lawsuits from disgruntled members of these groups claiming that the portrayal was inaccurate and thus libelous. … If the court were to permit an action to lie for the defamation of such a multitudinous group we would render meaningless the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to explore issues of public import.” (Source: Justia)
The consequences here laid down in the hypothetico-deductive mode are an accurate depiction of “Western democracies” such as Canada, France… In these countries (at least France, which I know best) hate speech laws make hate speech both a crime and a tort, and the authorities have allowed anti-defamation organizations to pocket damages from hate speech trials (beside their being subsidized by government).
Picture: A scene from drama-documentary Death of a Princess (by Antony Thomas, 1980, on the execution of Princess Mishaal bint Fahd Al Saud for adultery)
Nota Bena. The only groups that are taken into consideration in U.S. libel law are actual groups of few individuals, that is, not the group category as it is understood by hate speech laws around the world: “Calling a five-member task force ‘rife with corruption’ entitles each to sue. Asserting that a particular labor union is controlled by organized crime would certainly defame the officers of the union. Accusing all–or even most–of a 20 person night shift of using drugs on the job injures the reputation of each.” (Rosini, p. 32)
My Hate Speech Your Problem
“In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no ‘hate speech’ exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint.” (Wikipedia) (Emphasis mine)
Previous major Supreme Court decisions include R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011).
“Societal Impletation. In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted ‘speech codes’ regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students. These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.”
“Private regulation. In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur. The study failed to link telecommunication to hate crimes, but did find that “individuals have used telecommunications to disseminate messages of hate and bigotry to a wide audience.” Its recommendation was that the best way to fight hate speech was through additional speech promoting tolerance, as opposed to government regulation.” (Wikipedia: Hate Speech in the United States)
It is since the advent of a big-tech cartel that the issue of hate speech has become a cause of concern, for this cartel has unprecedented means of censoring people and is censoring perhaps millions of people at this juncture, based on terms of service where hate speech allegedly has a prominent place among the things these TOS do not allow. (The figures of human beings subjected to the cartel’s arbitrary censorship around the world are probably unknown even to the most invasive spy agencies, of which the cartel might be, by the way, only a scion, given the U.S. military origins of the internet.)
Besides, it is the most amazing story in the world that a thing –hate speech– so consistently protected by the Constitution should be the principal yardstick by which people in America think they are judged, as if hate speech were worse than crime. But something the Constitution protects cannot be worse than crime. (You would have to change the Constitution to allow government repression of hate speech, and then you could say, all right, hate speech is not desirable, but so long as the Constitution protects it, believe it or not, hate speech is desirable – at least it is preferable to its ban, which is to say that it is desirable to the extent that its ban, which is also in your power, would be harmful.)
It’s not enough to defend free speech, you must defend hate speech.
In Canada and other Western democracies politicians (politicos) defend free speech too – yet they are always passing new hate speech laws as one man.
It’s in your power to ban hate speech in the United States. It’s in your power to align the United States with Western democracies. It’s in your power to align the New World with the Old World. Therefore it’s not enough to defend free speech, you must defend hate speech.
You can’t be leader of the free world when you’re the free world.
It pains me to see how Americans are not thankful for, are not even appreciative of the relentless combat led by Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts to uphold freedom of hate speech –against the whole world– and of how they are thus opening the eyes of those who have eyes to the despicable hypocrisy of all politicians, all public officials, all public figures engaged in public controversies within so-called Western democracies.
A heartfelt thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States who consistently defends the freedom of hate speech guaranteed by the Constitution whereas courts in Western democracies have agreed that governments can ban hate speech and the countries still parade as free speech lands in front of their distorting mirrors with all their swag.
When the U.S. Supreme Court consistently defends hate speech as a constitutionally protected freedom (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969; R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 1992; Snyder v. Phelps 2011; Matal v. Tam 2017), the Justices are talking to the world. They are telling Western democracies: You are apes, aping political freedoms with nauseating swag.
Yes, hate speech is under attack.
Hate Crime Laws Are Unconstitutional
It’s time the courts declare hate crime laws unconstitutional. This is long overdue.
How can hate speech be protected as the U.S. Supreme Court intends (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul , Snyder v. Phelps , Matal v. Tam ) when public figures known for taking positions some call hate speech must always fear being provoked to offenses, even minor, that would lead to aggravated punishment, while the opponents who would provoke the incidents have no such Damocles sword hanging over their heads?
Let’s take an example. If a public figure vilified by LGBT groups as a hater gets entangled in a brawl with LGBT hecklers, he may face hate crime charges while the others will face unruly behavior charges or such like (they are not known for being haters because they’re the ones who call people haters and the media follow that stance).
Generally speaking, the “haters” (who have a constitutional right to hate speech) are at greater risk of frame-up because for them even the slightest charges can be greatly detrimental due to the aggravated penalties with which so-called hate crimes are dealt with.
Due to hate crime legislation whole classes of people are deprived of their full rights to political participation. This is GOVERNMENT REPRESSION OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
It’s political-police legislation, under which hecklers from minorities have a license to disrupt political speech in order to create incidents with political figures where the latter risk facing hate crime charges and the hecklers unruly behavior charges if anything.
Mister Chow Goes to Court,
or The Limits of Political Correctness (and Libel Law)
Mr Chow, owner of a Chinese restaurant in New York City, was humiliated by a culinary critique and sued. In turn the court that dismissed his claim (in appeal) humiliated him by the terms of the judgment and the author who deals with the case in a treatise on libel law (a kind of textbook) adds still another layer to the humilitation.
Restaurant reviews (like aesthetic criticism) seem to generate hyperbole of particular piquancy. For example, a food critic declared that the “green peppers…remained still frozen on the plate,” the rice was “soaking…in oil” and the pancakes were “the thickness of a finger” in a review of a Chinese restaurant. Though the restaurant owner had no tolerance for literary license and sued for defamation, the judge applauded the critic’s “attempt to interject style into the review rather than…convey with technical precision literal facts about the restaurant.” The judge refused to limit the author and others like him to pedestrian observations like “the peppers were too cold, the rice was too oily and the pancakes were too thick,” and also observed that the statements were incapable of being proved false. “What is too oily for one person may be perfect for some other person. The same can be said for the temperature of the vegetables, [and] the thickness of pancakes.” In another review, a sauce was described as “yellow death on duck” and the poached trout renamed “trout ala green plague.” For essentially the same reasons, the statements were deemed too hyperbolic expressions of pure opinion and not statements of fact.Neil J. Rosini, The Practical Guide to Libel Law, Praeger 1991, p. 146.
The case described is Mr Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A. (2d Cir. 1985). The last two quotes are from Mashburn v. Collin (La. 1977) (cited in Mr Chow of New York v. Ste. [it should be Sté., for Société] Jour Azur). The culinary critique in Mr Chow appeared in the Gault & Millau Guide to New York.
It was not enough that Mr Chow had been humiliated by the hyperbolic acid of the critique, the judge had to applaud the critic’s “attempt to interject style into the review” and in turn Rosini derides Mr Chow for lacking “tolerance for literary license,” scorns him for attempting to limit culinary critique to “pedestrian observations.” So much for political correctness.
It seems that PC has not encroached on public discussions in the legal and judicial field. I believe, although these facts are some forty years old, this is still the case because, as in other more or less specialized fields (in no way less important as to public controversies), the discussions are somewhat beyond the grasp of the general public. However, I am not sure Gault & Millau has maintained its piquancy with respect to ethnic cuisine, no matter how piquant the dishes are.
In Rosini’s book, the case illustrates the judicial difference between statements of fact and expressions of opinion. I find the distinction specious because opinions by Gault & Millau and other influential critics oftentimes are meant by those who claim participation in the set of connoisseurs as true statements of fact. When a master critic writes the rice is too oily, make no mistake, it is too oily. If you care about your social life, dare you not say you like the rice at Mr Chow’s when Gault & Millau wrote it is “soaking in oil.” In fact you do not even go to Mr Chow’s after reading that from Gault & Millau. In other words it is the critic’s opinion that is harmful (when negative), one cannot distinguish the critic’s opinion from statements of fact.
Only in the abstract “what is too oily for one person may be perfect for some other person,” because, as soon as the critic, who by definition knows what is good, speaks, his opinion is law – a law of taste. Just like juries are judge of facts and magistrates judge of law (sometimes judge of law and fact together), critics are judge of taste.
Therefore I am not too surprised that the trial court had found the defendant, the critic, guilty, because the distinction between expression of opinion and statement of fact is a specious one; a critic’s opinion is as likely as statements of fact to ruin one’s reputation and business, and Mr Chow probably could provide evidence of pecuniary loss (if he lost customers because of the critic’s “literary license”). – But what’s the point of critique if it either must be positive or face lawsuits? There is no critique, then, only réclame. Yet one needs critique, for instance when traveling to places where one has no acquaintances (the importance of culinary critique has increased with tourism).
The Biden Administration As Constitutional Problem
[White House press secretary] Psaki: No options are “off the table” regarding regulating online speech. (Reclaim the Net)
All options unconstitutional. “The White House isn’t toning down its rhetoric.” At some point in a continual, legally unrealistic discourse, it becomes something else, something like the announcement of a coup in broad daylight.
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” (First Amendment)
This administration is always talking of solutions to regulate –read ABRIDGE– speech. They ought to understand once and for all that they must leave people and their freedom of speech alone because if this legally unrealistic discourse goes on it should be clear that they are not going to find solutions as they are a constitutional problem in its own right.
The only available solution is to amend or repeal Section 230, which Donald Trump already contemplated. They don’t want to say they are walking on his footprints.
But this comes along the same kind of discourse on “online extremism.” It it is their obsession: to abridge freedom of speech. On the present issue they basically want to abridge the freedom of speech of opponents to the administration’s health policy. All solutions are off the table except tinkering with Section 230 and that would only allow for tort litigations (“to hold platforms accountable”) where the subject is in fact the government’s health policy.
To “hold platforms accountable” for spreading misinformation. (Reclaim the Net)
You’ve got to ask the question: “accountable for what?” (One needs to name a specific crime or tort there, not the vague “spreading misinformation.”) Does this administration want to explode Section 230 so that a couple of pharmaceutical companies, which the government commanded to develop covid vaccines, can sue for product disparagement? The government is trying to conflate opposition to its health policy with libelous attacks on private businesses. In that case all opposition to health policy choices would be stifled because:
“Pharmaceutical companies can be seen as ‘agents’ who work for the government (or society), developing new drugs. … They do not receive an amount of dollars for each successful drug discovery. Instead, they receive a patent.” (Gerrit De Geest, Rents, 2018) (The words “or society” are irrelevant: pharmaceutical companies work for the society as represented by the government.)
When Facebook, YouTube etc censor content that departs from an official narrative about the Covid, how is this not “state action” (allowing First Amendment suits)? As a matter of fact, what they are censoring is disagreement with a public policy. This choice, though private, is commanded by the government’s narrative. The platforms are making themselves (even if no state entanglement could be proven) enforcers of said public policy by not allowing opponents to the policy to share their opinions, that is, by not allowing anything through their private channels except the message buttressing the government’s policy, except government’s speech.
Surgeon General says “equity” is the reason COVID “misinformation” needs to be censored online. (Reclaim the Net)
“Misinformation is a threat to our health, and the speed, scale and sophistication with which it is spreading is unprecedented.” (Surgeon General)
Opposition by speech to government’s public health policies is an absolute constitutional right. Governement’s talking of “misinformation” is ominous enough, its ceaseless repetition a threat not only to political opponents but also to the Constitution. Government has no constitutional power, while enforcing its public policies, to enforce the justificatory discourse underlying them.
A military occupation of a foreign country allegedly “for the oil fields” means you want to convince people it is in order to pay top dollar for oil, when it would be much less expensive to just buy it. Give me a break.
Vaccination in an Age of Opioid Crisis
DC AG subpoenas Facebook for data on ALL users that have spread “COVID-19 misinformation.”–Unmasking people for wrongthink. (Reclaim the Net)
“The subpoena is part of a previously undisclosed investigation into whether Facebook is violating consumer protection laws.”
The story is quite hazy. It isn’t clear to me on what legal grounds the subpoena is issued. Consumer protection? When someone opposes vaccination, he certainly is no consumer of vaccines. ‘’Consumer’’ protection for vax dealers from their market then?
That they still have the effrontery to tell people what is information and what is misinformation on health issues while in the middle of an opioid crisis that has claimed more than half a million lives is mind-blowing.
In the middle of an opioid crisis that has claimed more than half a million lives† the ‘’administrative state’’ (John Marini) is in no position to tell citizens what is information and what is misinformation (for instance on vaccines).
‘’The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices.’’ (FDA’s Website) No, the FDA is not responsible for that since in the middle of an opioid crisis of such magnitude no accountability claim is raised against the FDA.
†« La crise des opaciés ayant fait plus d’un demi-million de morts depuis vingt ans » (Le Figaro newspaper, June 28, 2021)
Compulsory Love: State Rape of Consciences
Supreme Court Refuses To Decide If Floral Artist Loses Her Religious Liberty At Shop Door. (The Federalist, July 2, 2021)
Soon no one will know what to expect.
“In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court noted the ‘public aspects’ of a restaurant charged with racial discrimination, primarily attributable to the fact that it was a lessee in a publicly owned building. However, the ruling made it clear that not every lease of public property would be considered a sufficient entanglement to justify a finding of state action.” (Kennedy & Schultz, American Public Service, 2011).
This means there can be no charge of racial discrimination against restaurants that have no ‘public aspect’ about them (not in the sense of public accommodation but in the sense for example of being a lessee in a publicly owned building).
And this while “Under U.S. federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of ‘race, color, religion, or national origin’” (since the Civil Rights Acts – the case cited above predates the 1964 federal act but, as you know, a federal statute does not empty out a Supreme Court’s decision and, on the contrary, if it were argued that the federal statute runs into the decision that would mean the statute is unconstitutional.)
The case discussed by The Federalist is about derogations to anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations such as cakeshops or flower shops. Why even talk of derogations? If a restaurant with no ‘public aspect’ about it is immune from charges of discrimination under federal law, you bet a flower shop is immune from a whacky state law (unconstitutional to begin with).
The Supreme Cour of the United States (SCOTUS) declined to hear the case because, I’m sure, they know they would have to uphold the florist’s rights against Washington state’s anti-discrimination law and… they didn’t want to.
The Court had the clear duty to protect the florist’s right because this was expected by everyone from 1/ the Court’s case law (Masterpiece Cakeshop, 2018) and 2/ the Court’s action in the present case: “The Washington Supreme Court upheld the ban, even after SCOTUS asked the state’s court to keep the landmark Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling into account.” (The Federalist) 1+2=hear the case, not dismiss it.
One responsible for the declinal and contempt of an American citizen’s freedom is Justice Amy Coney Barrett… It seems it always works: she was so vilified and demonized as an extremist during the hearings that she might become a liberal swamp creature now in everything she does as Justice, if she has freaked out.
There are enough community-friendly businesses around with the little flags, leave people alone.
As Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen is currently prosecuted for hate speech in Finland after having expressed her Christian views about homosexuality (see Law 11), let us remember a case in Finland’s neighboring Sweden, where Pentecostal Pastor Åke Green was acquitted by the Swedish Supreme Court applying Articles 9 (freedom of conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of speech) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) against the Swedish criminal code.
For having in a sermon ‘’described ‘sexual perversions’ (referencing homosexuality) as ‘abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society’ [and] said that a person cannot be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time’’ (Wikipedia), Pastor Green was prosecuted for group libel (hets mot folksgrupp, ‘’incitement against a group’’) and sentenced to one month in prison. The court of appeals overturned the sentence, leading the attorney general, unsatisfied that Pastor Green could get off scot-free for expressing his views, to bring the case before the Supreme Court.
In 2005 the Supreme Court, invoking the ECHR that applies to all party states (among them Finland too), upheld Pastor Green’s right to express his views.
‘’Responding to the sentence, Sören Andersson, the president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL), said that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to persecute people.’’ (Wikipedia) This is a testimony of this person’s blatantly muddled notions since, even though there were no separation of Church and State in Sweden (there is a national Lutheran church), expressing one’s negative views about homosexuality from outside the national church and state in no way can be construed (contrived) as persecution of homosexuals, and on the contrary it would be Pastor Green’s conviction for his speech that would be persecution – and actually was state persecution (endorsed by RFSL) until the Supreme Court overturned the conviction.
I ask the Finnish courts regarding Päivi Räsänen to uphold Sweden’s interpretation of the ECHR and not to make an empty nutshell of the Convention.
On New Definitions as Hot Air
A new definition of antisemitism by the U.S. State Department is not a matter of law and can have no judicial effect on American citizens since antisemitism is nonexistent as a legal object to begin with (there is no constitutional hate speech law in the U.S. thanks to the First Amendment).
As I see it they intend the move as an international policy pressure tool: since anti-Zionism is now, by this new definition, antisemitism, they can object to anti-Zionist standpoints from other countries as antisemitic and presumably they believe it will give the American administration more self-wilfulness in their unconditional (and therefore, in my opinion, unconstitutional) alignment with Israel (aligned no matter what the latter’s policies are).
Probably mainstream media will talk a good deal about it? Governor Greg Abbott led the way by having the definition adopted already in Texas (see Law 17). I don’t know what it is in Texas, whether a statute, an executive act, or a sheet of paper signed by Abbott and flaunted to cameras… No idea, but neither this Texan nor the U.S. State Department’s definition is a normative act. They’re using their constitutional powers for non-normative activity: HOT AIR. Symbolically you might resent it, and symbolically mainstream media might make a lot of fuss about it as if it were lawmaking, but legally speaking this hot air is showing us some people at the end of their tether if anything.
(“At the end of their tether” means that if the hot air becomes too visibly pathetic they are going to resort to illegality in broad daylight.)
To be sure antisemitism might be considered a legal object through the dubious category of hate crime (a crime against an individual is thought more egregious when the alleged motivation is hate towards a group). I call the category dubious but so far it has not been declared unconstitutional so I make the present qualification. However this does not change one jot to what I wrote, as neither the State Department nor Abbott’s definition binds courts, which will continue to use their own sovereign definitions.
Given that the new administration’s barefaced hostility to the First Amendment can only lead to their blowing hot air and never to legitimate lawmaking, the greatest threat of illegal violence at this juncture in the USA is poised against law-abiding white dissenters. There is something pathetic about blowing hot air which cannot escape them (the administration, the government) long.
New York Will Allow People to Sue Gun Manufacturers for Violence.
People are already allowed to sue and courts are and will continue to be allowed to dismiss such claims as groundless. Another example of hot air.
On the Individual Right to Own Nuclear Weapons
‘’If you wanted to take on the governement, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.’’ (Joe Biden)
Defenders of the Second Amendment have memed about the F-15s, with pictures of jet planes displayed on private lawns and such like.
The Second Amendment, I argue, allows one to own nuclear weapons.
Here’s the story: ‘’The only instance where a court has permitted the prior restraint of a newspaper was in United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979), where a federal court enjoined a magazine from publishing the directions on how to make a hydrogen bomb. The government feared that publishing the recipe for the bomb would threaten the United States. Eventually a federal court of appeals decision lifted the injunction on publication of the directions and the Progressive Magazine published the hydrogen bomb recipe in an article.’’ (Encyclopedia of American Law, Schultz ed., 2002: prior restraint)
The recipe for the H bomb was published in a magazine around 1979 (after the restraint on publication was lifted by a court of appeals). The prior restraint was lifted because the court of appeals did not agree with the government that publishing the recipe would threaten the United States. Therefore, as publishing the recipe for a nuclear weapon is not a threat such as prior restraint would be warranted, similarly owning a nuclear weapon is not, since publishing is only a step to making and owning the weapon and not an end in itself. As a consequence, any statute prohibiting the making and owning of nuclear weapons violates the Constitution.
Health Official [Nova Scotia, Canada]: Banning Public Gatherings Stops “Misinformation” Spread.
Every piece of information about Canada should appear with a mandatory warning: ‘’Canada.’’ You can’t go on freaking people out like this.
Libel Law and Political Cartel
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch call for a revisiting of 1964 case that prevented public figures suing for defamation. (Reclaim the Net)
Well, public figures are not “prevented” from suing, only they must show actual malice when the statements are untrue, that is, the onus of the proof is on them. – Let these two (Justices) have their way and soon you’ll have nothing to envy to beloved Canada.
Of course public figures can sue, only claimants have to demonstrate defendants’ actual malice and this is what Justices Gorsuch and Thomas disagree with. They want politicians to be censors through gag trials as politicians do in other countries like Canada.
Reclaim the Net wrote a rather supportive paper on Justices Thomas and Gorsuch’s opinion that libel law should be changed regarding public officials (read: politicians), that is, that NYT v. Sullivan should be reversed. Therefore they endorsed a view contrary to free speech, they defend politicians’ so-called personality rights against free speech, supporting the two Justices’ view that the line should be drawn as it is in Canada, for instance, which is to pave the way to a political class forming a protected political cartel.
This, in my opinion, betrays Reclaim the Net’s conservative militancy, that is, their alignment with party politics. As it is observed that the media environment is biased towards the Democratic party and against the Republican party, the two Justices think that to align libel law with all other western democracies’ practice (with their political cartels) will allow Republican politicians to respond to smear campaigns (as if such campaigns were really detrimental to them, to begin with, rather than the opposite).
To make a long story short: this will Canadize (Canada-ize) the USA. (But as I said already time and again hostility to free speech is universal among professional politicians: this statement is my contribution to political SCIENCE.)
(One more thing: When you will have Canadize USA through libel law, it will only be a matter a time before USA adopts hate speech laws Canada-wise and alternative social platforms will be no more.)
Canada marching towards tyranny as move to criminalize dissenting speech moves closer to reality. (Natural News)
Hate speech is already a crime in Canada and has been for decades. Therefore Canada is not “moving to criminalize dissenting speech,” as if it did not exist already in the country.
“The proposed legislation by the Justice Department of Canada would tamp down on hate speech by adding language to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canadian criminal code to try to clarify the definition of hate speech.”
We’re talking of a mere “clarification” of the definition of hate speech. – Opponents to this “clarification” are not opposed to hate speech legislation, quite the contrary: “This bill will not target hate speech – just ensure bureaucrats in Ottawa are bogged down with frivolous complaints about tweets,” Rob Moore, the Conservative Party’s Shadow Minister for Justice and Attorney General of Canada, noted.” Canadian conservative opposition feels the clarification of the definition of hate speech will not target hate speech and therefore it is bad. For them criminalization of hate speech is GOOD. And they’re the opposition.
Two ‘’Western Democracies’’ Worlds Apart
Tennessee mayor powerless to remove ‘vile’ anti-Biden flag.
The flag, which says, “(expletive) Biden and (expletive) you for voting for him,” was propped up at least a month ago at a home in Munford.
Mayor Dwayne Cole said the city attorney looked into the matter and, despite the wave of complaints, determined that the homeowner is within his rights to fly the flag. (Washington Examiner, July 4, 2021)
Une jeune femme interpellée à Toulouse pour une banderole “Macronavirus” dans son jardin. La police l’a placée en garde à vue pour « outrage », avant de la relâcher, indique son avocate. Mediapart fait état de plusieurs interventions policières en France pour des affaires de ce genre.
Les résidents ont obtempéré à la demande de décrochage, mais les policiers sont revenus le lendemain remettre une convocation à l’une d’entre eux. (Sud Ouest, April 24, 2020)
‘’If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither the judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught to fear is his victim.’’ (Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper USMC [United States Marine Corps])
« Réduire la criminalité, seule la victime considérée peut le faire. Le criminel n’a pas peur de la police, du juge ni d’un jury. Aussi, ce dont il doit apprendre à avoir peur, c’est de sa victime. » (Lieut. col. Jeff Cooper [1920-2006])
Tout le reste est État policier.