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 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 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 stresses 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 their reputation is 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 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 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 American 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.
Here my 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 those countries dare 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 declared 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 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).
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 adds one more layer of 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 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 constitutionally unrealistic discourse goes on it will be clear 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 Trump’s 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 public 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. The government has no constitutional power, while enforcing its public policies, to enforce against freedom of speech the justificatory discourse underlying them.
The Female Party
“Nearly two-thirds of all Democrats are women; here we see the much-discussed gender gap as less than half of the Republicans are female.” (Maisel, American Political Parties and Elections, 2016)
From same source: “In a Gallup poll conducted in June 2015, 31 percent [of Americans] identified themselves as Democrats, 25 percent as Republicans, and 41 percent as independents.”
Assuming the ratios for party membership stand also for people who “identify as” (as a matter of fact I see no reason, no explanatory factor why both ratios should be significantly different), we’ve got the highest proportion of males among “independents.” Independent, therefore, sounds a lot like males who cannot identify with party politics.
According to my calculations, the figures are (source says “nearly two third,” and “less than half” [meaning “not significantly less,” I believe, otherwise the source is saying nothing of quantitative value], so these figures are approximations [also because 31+25+41 doesn’t add up to 100 percent]):
20.6 percent of American population are female Dem;
12.5 female Rep;
13.6 female independent;
10.3 male Dem;
12.5 male Rep;
27.3 male independent.
By order of magnitude: male independent (27.3) > female Dem (20.6) > female independent (13.6) > male & female Rep (12.5 twice) > male Dem (10.3).
There are twice as many Democratic women as Democratic men in USA. This imbalance is in dire need of an explanation.
You can check my calculations are right in this quick way: 20.6=2(10.3) “there are twice as many Democratic women as Democratic men,” which is the same as “(Nearly) two-thirds of all Democrats are women,” since if you take 9, two thirds of 9 is 6, one third is 3, and 6=2(3).
There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti
Abstract: The claim that gun manufacturers are treated differently than other manufacturers is unsubstantiated, in contract, consumer protection, and tort law. Arguments for gun control often overlook a general principle of law that may be encapsulated in the words “There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti.”
“New York Will Allow People to Sue Gun Manufacturers for Violence.” Cuomo was elected at the wrong election, in fact he wanted to be a judge. Now he is governor and he thinks he can tell courts what their decisions should be?
There already were trials against arms manufacturers, notably after Sandy Hook. But also there is the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Adoption of the act was obviously intended as a shield against the bad faith of Second Amendment opponents who want to hold arms manufacturers liable not for failing to deliver as stipulated but on the contrary for complying with business regulations and contract stipulations.
Example: “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields the gun industry from nearly all civil liability for the dangers their products pose. With nearly every American industry and product, civil liability can be used as an important check on irresponsible manufacturers and sellers—but not the gun industry.” (Giffords Law Center: To prevent gun violence)
A gun manufacturer is liable if he sells a defective, hazardous gun, like any other manufacturer. What the opponents want is to make the manufacturers liable for weapons that function as stipulated in contracts and according to reasonable safety expectations, and under the rule of law there can be no such liability in this world.
Opponents talk of “dangerous products” as if the aim of a weapon were not, precisely, to be dangerous (in order to deter aggression and crime). The dangerous products of contract law are products which use is beneficial besides their dangerousness, so the category cannot as such apply to guns, which benefice lies in their very dangerousness, their purposeful dangerousness. Dangerous guns as to contract law are defective guns which use presents a danger to the user mainly; there is no liability regarding the gun’s normal danger to other people (to whom the gun is dangerous on purpose, in case they need to be deterred).
The trials that courts have examined and will continue to examine no matter what governor Cuomo says about it are cases of normal liability. But opponents want to create a new judicial category that cannot exist.
A gun is a deterrent and as such it is dangerous. It is dangerous as such.
You need explosives to drill tunnels. Explosives are “dangerous products” as to tort law because you need them to drill tunnels and at the same time their use is dangerous. Therefore liability might be involved when the danger turns out to cause injury. That is to say, when you use explosives, normally you don’t cause injury, you only open a tunnel.
On the other hand, when you use a gun, basically you harm or kill someone and–mind you–that’s the expected outcome of the lawful use of the gun (self-defense). Generally speaking you don’t need to use the guns you own because owning them is a sufficient deterrent most of the times.
Everyone (except a few “law centers”) thus sees that guns are not the usual dangerous products of tort law, as the danger guns pose is the very aim of their lawful ownership and use.
Since opponents to the right to bear arms wanted to remain blind to such crystal-clear distinctions, the legislator felt compelled to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in order to prevent complacent courts to call guns “dangerous” and hold manufacturers liable as if we were dealing with explosives needed to open tunnels, which would be a devious way to suppress the Second Amendment, emptying it out, without due constitutional amendment process.
Just let me know if you have ever heard of a manufacturer held liable for damages caused by the unlawful use of his products. This is what opponents to the right to bear arms want for gun manufacturers.
They say: ‘’When products cause damages, manufacturers are liable. Guns kill people, so gun manufacturers must be held liable.’’ This is nonsense. It is when their products are used in a lawful expected way and yet causing damage, due to a defect, that manufacturers may be held liable. If on the other hand someone kills another one with say a screwdriver, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the loss of one’s life.
With guns the lawful and the unlawful uses both have the same outcome: injury or death of people (leaving aside such uses as hunting and shooting sports). When people kill others with guns unlawfully, the manufacturer is not liable. And when someone kills another lawfully, in self-defense, then his gun worked as expected. There can be no trial unless someone needed to fire a gun and it did not work as expected.
“I’ve heard of pharmaceutical companies being prosecuted for not making it hard enough to open their packages to keep the content from candy-seeking children.“
The suits my interlocutor talks about are normal liability cases, what one may expect, not necessarily what one may reasonably expect, it depends on the claims, but what one may expect within the boundaries of the rule of law. What the opponents to the right to bear arms are up to is quite different, it isn’t possible to give them reason without violating the consistency of legal principles.
Manufacturers, like the pharmaceutical companies in the example, are expected to deliver reasonably safe products–gun manufacturers too and guns have safety locks.
In the same way that you cannot sue (win a suit against) a pharmaceutical company when someone uses their medicines to deliberately poison another person to death, you cannot sue gun manufacturers for the unlawful shooting of innocent people. There’s no exception to the principle that I know or can think of.
A product turned tool of crime, a part of corpus delicti, shifts to quite another sphere. There is no “manufacturer” of that “new” object. There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti because crime is in criminal intention (mens rea) and there is nothing a manufacturer could do to prevent people from having criminal intentions. A manufacturer can improve the technicalities of his products as well as consumer information about the products’ potential hazards so that their use is as safe as possible, but his action cannot reach further than his products, that is, he has no control over people’s lives. (The impact of marketing and advertising is an entirely different issue and here we do not examine the prospects of suing manufacturers for their advertisements, only the prospects of suing them for “violence” as in the New York statute.)
Reminder: “The five elements of a crime. (1) Actus reus–The guilty act (2) Mens rea–The guilty mind (3) Concurrence–The coexistence of (i) an act in violation of the law and (ii) a culpable mental state (4) Causation–The concurrence of mind and act must produce (5) Harm.”
That leaves open tort litigation against gun manufacturers if the shooter is declared insane and criminally irresponsible. Perhaps, because then the shooting is not a crime. But then again, a manufacturer has no influence over people’s state of mind; here insanity cannot be distinguished from criminal intent. What could be argued is that gun manufacturers have an influence over the whole nation’s state of mind, making it violent, but this kind of reasoning cannot be used in judicial proceedings, which bear on individual cases, and may be food for the legislator’s thought qua legislator subject to the Constitution. (If such reasoning could be used in a court of law, that would excuse all violent criminals.)
One cannot sue (win a suit against) manufacturers for tort damages when a crime is committed with one of their products. This is what opponents to the right to bear arms push for. They push for their reform not by saying they want all manufacturers to be suable for damages when crimes are committed with their products but by saying they want the general law of torts applied to gun manufacturers as it is to any other manufacturer, but the truth is that gun manufacturers are already within the general law and if we were to give reason to the opponents to the right to bear arms we would make gun manufacturers liable in situations where the other manufacturers are not.
As to someone’s claim that “you can sue anyone for tort damages,” the opponents themselves are not so sure, as shown in the recent news “New York Will Allow People to Sue Gun Manufacturers for Violence.” A bill–or whatever state or local act–is needed in their eyes.
Another bill is the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) “that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.” There was no need of such a bill because the described protection is a necessary consequence of foundational notions of law, is a general unwritten principle which we encapsulate in the words “There are no manufacturers of corpora delicti.”
As gun manufacturers cannot be held responsible in situations where other manufacturers are not without violating the general principle that there are no manufacturers of corpora delicti, no legislative body or court is granted the constitutional power to make such a move. If guns are to be treated in the overriding fashion that opponents want, it has to be through constitutional amendment, probably not only by removal of the Second Amendment but also by allowing expressly tort suits against manufacturers for the unlawful use of their products, or by forbidding individuals to carry guns.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Bishop of Stockholm. Complete with cassock, mitre and crosier.
“Eva Brunne is the first openly lesbian bishop of a mainstream church in the world and the first bishop of the Church of Sweden to be in a registered same-sex partnership.” (Wikipedia) (2009-2019)
Archbishop Antje Jackelén, primate of the Church of Sweden. “The first female archbishop,” since 2014 strongly dedicated to apparel tradition.
They blame Chief Justice Taney (Scott v. Sandford, 1857) for “seeing slavery in the Constitution” but if slavery was not in the Constitution, why did slaveowners and the Southern States ratify it? You had to convince them that slavery was in the Constitution to obtain their ratification, and if you turned out to be convincing then it probably is because it is true that slavery was in the Constitution, even if you did not believe it yourself and thought you were lying to slaveowners.
I disagree with late (conservative failed nominee to the Supreme Court) Robert Bork: A constitutional amendment was indeed necessary to end slavery in the United States, and Taney was a correct interpret of the Constitution.
Picture: Taney statue removed from Maryland state house (Aug 2017).
(For a discussion of Bork’s views, see Law 8.)
Charged For (Name a Crime)
Former highschool student charged for putting Hitler quote in yearbook. (New York Post, July 13, 2021)
New York Post‘s headline is sheer disinformation, of which their own article gives ample evidence. The kid is charged for “computer crimes for accessing a database used by students to alter two classmates’ entries.”
The so-called “Hitler quote” are the words “It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us fail to realize what is really happening to them,” which the kid “incorrectly attributed” to George Floyd. To detect that these were actually Hitler’s words requires a level of specialization far beyond the average and if, to boot, as the paper seems to say, the kid did not know they were Hitler’s words (obviously, if the kid “incorrectly” attributed the words to George Floyd, it means he did not change the author’s name on purpose, knowingly), you may not talk of a Hitler quote at all.
The second quote is thus described by NYP: “Tryon, 18, also reportedly inserted a quote in a second student’s yearbook entry referencing drugs and Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was convicted in the April 2013 attack that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others.” There’s not a jot of information in that, it could mean anything, the quote could either be apology of terrorism or indictment of terrorism or something entirely different for all we know. Obviously NYP doesn’t care what the content of this quote is, they had their headline with the “Hitler quote” and that was good enough for these muckrakers.
But, again, the case is not at all about a Hitler quote. The headline should not read “charged for putting Hitler quote in yearbook” because under the rule of law you charge people for crimes and a Hitler quote, even in a yearbook, is not a crime.
Libel Law and Political Cartel 2
Trust in US mainstream media hits rock bottom. (Reclaim the Net)
This is why Justices Thomas and Gorsuch’s view that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should be reversed must not be heeded to. Libel law must remain favorable to the messenger when the message deals with public officials and public figures. Smear campaigns by disreputable media do little harm. On the other hand giving public officials (read, mainly, politicians) a convenient weapon in libel law woud Canadize U.S.A. (see Law 18: Libel Law and Political Cartel). I go as far as saying that current U.S. libel law is what has made U.S. mainstream media fall into general disrepute, as media felt unbound and that has been their fall because they lack integrity.
Taxes and Irresponsible Police
‘’Defund the police’’ is the logical sequel to Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (SCOTUS 2005). No one needs (as no one should rely on) an irresponsible police. To pay taxes for this is madness plain and simple.
‘’Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.’’ (Wikipedia)
« On n’est pas en Turquie »
Rappelez-vous. Macron réfute toute dérive autoritaire : « On n’est pas en Turquie. » (Huffington Post, 4/12/20)
Or quel pays figure avec la Turquie parmi les États « sous surveillance » (under watch) en matière de censure internet ? La France, seul État occidental dans cette catégorie avec l’Australie (et la Norvège mais seulement pour les métadonnées transnationales : « only the metadata on traffic that crosses Norwegian borders »). (Wikipédia : Internet Censorship)
A noter que parmi les « ennemis d’internet », donc la catégorie encore en-dessous dans cette classification de Reporters sans frontières, à côté des dictatures auxquelles on s’attend (Chine…), on trouve les U.S. et le Royaume-Uni. Depuis Trump, les U.S. ne cherchent même pas à garantir un principe de « neutralité du Net », donc rien d’étonnant puisque les acteurs privés font alors ce qu’ils veulent.
En résumé, 4 États occidentaux censurent internet : U.S. (libre censure privée), Royaume-Uni, Australie et France. Parmi ces quatre, seul un, la France, est membre de l’Union européenne (UE).
Si la Turquie n’a pas le droit d’entrer dans l’UE, je ne vois pas ce que la France y fait.
On n’est pas en Turquie, on est en Franquie.
Des mots inacceptables
Rappelez-vous. Macron : « On ne peut pas parler de violences policières dans un Etat de droit. » (« Ne parlez pas de “répression” ou de “violences policières”, ces mots sont inacceptables dans un Etat de droit. »)
Non, c’est en dictature qu’on ne peut pas parler de violences policières.