Tag Archives: First Amendment

More Special Laws – from TPC

18 Tuesday Feb 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on More Special Laws – from TPC

Tags

, , ,

Graffiti and Tweet: Solving The Case

I visited an interstate rest area sometime within the past few months. There, I observed the philosophical wisdom of a Sharpie Sherpa. His calligraphed message was, “Jews Own You.” Not one to obsess over such advertorial import, even as vile a message of anti-Messianic, anti-American, Europhobic hate, I thought little of it – until last week. Then, someone issued a follow-up thought via Twitter. Therein, I found my suspect.

It was also not for nothing that the American administration has taken this step together with us. In recent years, we have promoted laws in most US states, which determine that strong action is to be taken against whoever tries to boycott Israel.

    • Hon. Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, Feb. 12, 2020

I mean, he’s already under indictment for massive corruption in his own country! Why not vandalize a rest area door in ours? Or, is it really our own? I looked into what was meant by the Graffiti, ink-based and digital.

“Most US states” means 28 out of the 50. I made mention of similar Imperial legislation last year. Ownership? If someone doesn’t necessarily own Congress and the State Houses, then they may at least have a solid lease in place, one sufficient to brag about.

Your beloved Georgia is a majority jurisdiction in this regard, having enacted SB 327 (2016), adding Section 50-5-85 to that statist’s dream known as the Official Code of Georgia. 

The state shall not enter into a contract with an individual or company if the contract is related to construction or the provision of services, supplies, or information technology unless the contract includes a written certification that such individual or company is not currently engaged in, and agrees for the duration of the contract not to engage in, a boycott of Israel.

    • O.C.G.A. § 50-5-85(b)

There was something – I forget exactly what – in the Old Cornsternation, which forbade “abridging the freedom of speech.” Or something. It’s fuzzy. Something was said to be incorporated as to and against the States. I haven’t visited the museum in a while, sorry. 

Oh yeah! Georgia, like too many other corrupt states, has imposed a loyalty oath to a foreign power, in plain contravention of the rights and freedoms of the American People. Exactly what one would expect from a band of craven con artists and idiots. (A gentle reminder: you did vote for them). 

The manifestation of this abridgment looks like the following, taken from deep in a Georgia Tech procurement contract:

    1. Boycott Nonparticipation Certification. Contractor hereby certifies that Contractor is not currently engaged in, and agrees for the duration of The Purchase Order not to engage in, a boycott of Israel as defined in O.C.G.A. 50-5-85(a)(1). [Terms and Conditions, Dec. 2019, Page 23]

The terms and conditions are much the same for other educational establishments. A potential speaker found out about it the hard way at Georgia Southern. Abby Martin is a filmmaker who documented the living conditions of Palestinians in Gaza, conditions which led to (symbolic) Convictions for Genocide, pursuant to the Nuremberg standards (minus the original torture and lack of due process), and which Human Rights Watch calls “severe and discriminatory” in violation of various international conventions. Perhaps something to boycott? We’re still not sure, exactly, as Martin never had the chance to express her freedom of speech. She was barred from speaking at Southern by the above illegal, anti-First Amendment law.

Not one to play dead like an establishment Republican, Martin is suing the University and the Georgia Board of Regents in federal court. READ HER IRON-CLAD COMPLAINT. Quoth the Petition:

  1. The First Amendment protects the rights of all speakers to advocate for all viewpoints on issues of public concern. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).

Yes, the Gold Dome hosts a horde of petty officials. Most don’t know what a constellation is though most nonetheless live to force things on the citizens. Martin will win. She will obtain both the injunction and the declaration she’s after, and her damages, and attorney’s fees. This brand of law has been declared Unconstitutional in Texas and will also be crushed in Georgia – at your expense (here again, you did elect these fools – next time, maybe vote harder?). You’ll be billed for her expenses and those of the AG’s office in losing this ridiculous fight. I’ll peg it early at around $500,000 – just an estimate.

As a cogent aside, her Complaint, seeking relief for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, originally and colloquially known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, being formerly enacted to combat discrimination in places like Georgia. The more things change…

Again, the great and readily preventable shame of this legal matter is that the subject illegal law was enacted at the behest of a foreign power for the express purpose of curtailing the liberties of Americans. Now, for no reason whatsoever, I throw out the following two links:

Link One

Link Two

Just linkin’, yo.

Is it really in the best interests of Israel as a State to give even the appearance of manipulating the laws of another sovereign nation? For the Israeli people, certainly not; for the elected elite, it appears to be a gamble they’re willing to take. Is it in the best interests of American politicians, however stupid, to enact such rubbish? Dunno – and, in their defense (true devil’s advocacy), they may have thought that “BDS” meant “Bringing Depot Scrutiny.” If you’ve ever hung out with the General(ly useless) Assembly gang, then you know. Know also that none of this is in the interests of Americans.

So, in closing, and for morality’s sake, should you see Benjamin Netanyahu at a rest area, with or without a writing instrument, then please call the police. 

*Today’s CFF National Affairs column proudly brought to you by:

THE FIRST AMENDMENT*

*currently unavailable in some areas.

 

As Originally Seen at TPC

For the record: I appear to have edited myself out of commenting abilities at TPC… So, here’s an addendum: Mini-Mike is not onboard with America, her People, or freedom (for us). If I had to name a second suspect, it would be the dwarf.

Well, Of Course

17 Monday Feb 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Well, Of Course

Tags

, , ,

As I warned about at TPC two years ago, and as I’ve continued to warn, Mark Zuckerberg wants to control the laws of our nation. To fight “hate,” which I’m sure will be most conveniently defined.

He’s not alone. All of big tech wants to dominate the web and censor unpopular (read: true) speech.

Some of the biggest corporations in the United States are brawling over the future of the law that allows free speech and innovation to thrive online. Under the guise of getting rid of lies and protecting children, they’re working with the Trump administration and top Republicans to undermine Americans’ rights and give the government unprecedented control over online speech.

That they do, and they may well get their way, the words and acts of gentlemen like Ron Wyden notwithstanding. As gatekeepers, they must control the narrative at all costs. As idiots, the majority of the people couldn’t care less.

The day may come – be it long delayed – when this site is silenced. I won’t be. Social media does not suit me and I can’t understand how anyone tolerates it. My columns at TPC, always honest and always based on facts (even the fictional stories, most of them), sometimes stir hesitance. Some things, I am told, while true, are still off-limits or at least touchy. So be it. Things will continue even if I have to print pamphlets from typewriter to printing press.But, the truth will go on. Who’ll hear it?

The “Virtual Earthquake” of Religious School Funding

24 Friday Jan 2020

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The “Virtual Earthquake” of Religious School Funding

Tags

, , , ,

The Supreme Court takes up a Montana law prohibiting state funds from going to religious (Christian) schools.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said such a ruling would be a ‘‘virtual earthquake,’’ devastating to the way states fund public education.

And Montana told the court that, as in 37 other states, it is reasonable for its constitution to prohibit direct or indirect aid to religious organizations.

‘‘The No-Aid Clause does not prohibit any religious practice,’’ Montana said in its brief. ‘‘Nor does it authorize any discriminatory benefits program. It simply says that Montana will not financially aid religious schools.’’

The focus should be on a wall between government and education. While a ruling for the Christians would be a welcomed respite, they should avoid any contact with the state, even with the money originally stolen from them. Earthquake? Really? Why any of this is a concern to “Mrs.” Weingarten is a mystery; her country funds its chosen religious majority schools because that is what its citizens want. Why can’t Americans have the same choice?

Scrapping the Constitution

24 Thursday Oct 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Scrapping the Constitution

Tags

, , , ,

A slight majority are in favor – at least as to the First Amendment.

A majority of Americans believe the First Amendment should be rewritten and are willing to crack down on free speech, as well as the press, according to a new poll.

More than 60 percent of Americans agree on restricting speech in some way, while a slim majority, 51 percent, want to see the First Amendment rewritten to “reflect the cultural norms of today.” The Campaign for Free Speech, which conducted the survey, said the results “indicate free speech is under more threat than previously believed.”

“The findings are frankly extraordinary,” executive director Bob Lystad told the Washington Free Beacon. “Our free speech rights and our free press rights have evolved well over 200 years, and people now seem to be rethinking them.”

Of the 1,004 respondents, young people were the most likely to support curbing free expression and punishing those who engage in “hate speech.” Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution “goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America” and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make “hate speech” a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.

This isn’t at all surprising, considering that the average Amerikan is retarded and trending towards being wicked. But, the joke is on these fools (and those “conservatives” who babble about an Article 5 Con-Con): that Constitution thing was shredded in 1861. All this poll indicates is that the majority who leave an embarrassing epitaph.

UConn Job: Arresting the First Amendment

22 Tuesday Oct 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on UConn Job: Arresting the First Amendment

Tags

, ,

States have stupid laws, many of them in conflict with the Constitution. That’s not the news, nor are these arrests in CT.

“The two students both were charged under CGS 53-37, ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race,” Reitz said. “A third person had accompanied them as they walked outside of the apartments, but the police investigation determined that individual had not participated in the behavior.”

The two men arrested were identified in a police report obtained by Campus Reform as Ryan Mucaj and Jarred Karal, both 21. The police report states that Mucaj and Karal “played a game in which they yelled vulgar words” after leaving an area business.

Mucaj and Karal are scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 30. If convicted, they could face fines of up to $50, up to 30 days in jail, or both.

The news is that the President of the “univerity” supports the police state:

UConn President Thomas Katsouleas released a statement reacting to the arrests, saying, “It is supportive of our core values to pursue accountability, through due process, for an egregious assault on our community that has caused considerable harm. I’m grateful for the university’s collective effort in responding to this incident, especially the hard work of the UConn Police Department, which has been investigating the case since it was reported.”

The due process versus the collective. Yeah… Katsouleas? Maybe he needs to go back. Greece surely needs more communists. Ridicule and contempt? I hope so.

Thank Heavens for the First Amendment

18 Saturday May 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Thank Heavens for the First Amendment

Tags

, , , ,

In France, reporters face jail time for spilling secrets the government would rather keep quiet.

JOURNALISTS IN FRANCE are facing potential jail sentences in an unprecedented case over their handling of secret documents detailing the country’s involvement in the Yemen conflict.

Earlier this week, a reporter from Radio France and the co-founders of Paris-based investigative news organization Disclose were called in for questioning at the offices of the General Directorate for Internal Security, known as the DGSI. The agency is tasked with fighting terrorism, espionage, and other domestic threats, similar in function to the FBI in the United States.

The two news organizations published stories in April — together with The Intercept, Mediapart, ARTE Info, and Konbini News — that revealed the vast amount of French, British, and American military equipment sold to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and subsequently used by those nations to wage war in Yemen.

The stories — based on a secret document authored by France’s Directorate of Military Intelligence and obtained by the journalists at Disclose — highlighted that officials at the top of the French government had seemingly lied to the public about the role of French weapons in the war. They demonstrated the extent of Western nations’ complicity in the devastating conflict, which has killed or injured more than 17,900 civilians and triggered a famine that has taken the lives of an estimated 85,000 children.

A government lies to its people about killing children?! Must be a first… Too bad the Frenchies don’t have freedom of the press, like we …

Screenshot 2019-05-18 at 7.30.48 AM

Abridging the freedom of … the press…

12 Sunday May 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Abridging the freedom of … the press…

Tags

, , , ,

Scenario: Some local police are corrupt. The public defender dwells on said corruption. A reporter sometimes reports on this as well. The PD dies. Police possibly attempt to tarnish the dead PD’s character. Someone leaks an internal police report to the reporter. The reporter publishes the report in the ordinary course of doing his job. The police run to their friends at the FBI and the hall o’ the black robes for help; then, they seize the reporter’s work tools at gunpoint. Most Americans, only aware that none of this happened to them, do not care.

“They treated me like I was some kind of drug dealer,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post.

Carmody was being raided in connection with a criminal investigation.

Two weeks before, police investigators showed up at his home to ask him, politely he says, to identify the source who provided him with a confidential police report about the February death of the city’s public defender, Jeff Adachi. Carmody, who said he worked with three local television news stations on the story, declined.

He wasn’t about to give up his source on Friday either, despite the escalation — not to the police or two FBI agents in suits who questioned him about the case, he said.

“I’m smart enough not to talk to federal agents, ever,” Carmody said. “I just kept saying ‘lawyer, lawyer, lawyer.’ ”

So he stayed handcuffed for the next six hours, he says — a certificate of release from the police department that he distributed says he was in custody from 8:22 a.m. until 1:55 p.m. — as investigators searched his home, then his office, where they found the report in a safe. A search warrant filed in the case notes that it was issued as police investigated “stolen or embezzled property.”

“There’s only two people on this planet who know who leaked this report — me and the guy who leaked it,” Carmody said.

The raid on Carmody’s home and office drew wide First Amendment-related attention in the Bay Area over the weekend. And it added a new twist to the intrigue that surrounded the death of Adachi, who had built up a high profile as a public defender in the 16 years he had held the office.

At least he didn’t talk to the police.

This is, and isn’t, a First Amendment issue. Liberal protestations about common sense press controls aside, Carmody’s rights were violated. But, it doesn’t matter. This is really about the police protecting themselves and involving Br’er Wolf to help them. The DOJ, which should be watching for police misconduct – like violations of press freedom – instead concern themselves with aiding a cover-up. It’s not legal or political, per se, unless Cosa Notra be political.

In truth, there’s no more freedom of the press, than there is justice in our multi-layered federal system. Now, off you go to see Endgame, in which Ironman dies.

Birds for Pigs

15 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Birds for Pigs

Tags

, , ,

Feel free to flip off a cop. It’s protected free speech.

Well, actually don’t. It’s also really dumb speech.

Woman gets stopped for speeding. Cop shows mercy and gives her a ticket for a nonmoving violation. As police officer pulls away, however, woman gives him the finger – or, as a U.S. District Court puts it, “flips him the bird.”

Cop takes offense, switches on lights and siren and stops her again, ploughing into her car in the process and then, on top of that, changing the original ticket to a moving violation.

She sues the officer for violating her constitutional rights.

Did he?

Normally, cases like this one don’t get quite this far.

For one thing, most drivers don’t ordinarily give cops the finger as they pull away, especially when the officer has just let them off with a nonmoving violation.

But Cruise-Gulyas told The Washington Post that she was unhappy because, according to her, the area where she was pulled over in June 2017 about 18 miles southwest of Detroit is a notorious “speed trap” for the Taylor Police Department.

“I know this is a bunch of B.S.,” she said, so “when I pulled off I gave him the middle finger.”

And Minard went to the appeals court claiming immunity from the suit, arguing that even if he did violate her rights, which he did not admit to doing, those rights were not clearly established.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel Wednesday, disagreed.

While suggesting the woman was a bit “ungrateful,” the second stop was not reasonable and the officer should have known it, Sutton said.

To justify the second stop, he wrote, Minard needed “probable cause that she had committed” a violation.

He didn’t have it, the judge said. Giving the finger is not a crime. That “all too familiar gesture,” as he put it, is “protected by the First Amendment.”

Since there was no reason to believe she broke the law, he also violated her Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure when he pulled her over again.

While I applaud the court’s decision I’m reminded that hard cases make bad law. Or, dumb law. If you know you’re in a known speed trap area, then do not speed. If you do and you get pulled over, and the kind officer lets you off with a warning, then take it with gratitude.

Takes all kinds.

As If the Statehouse Wasn’t Satanic Enough…

09 Sunday Dec 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on As If the Statehouse Wasn’t Satanic Enough…

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Every capital, every day: the evil is palpable. Just in time for Christmas, Illinois gets extra sulfur. Satanic Sculpture Installed At Illinois Statehouse, Just In Time For The Holidays

In the Illinois Capitol rotunda this month, several traditions are being celebrated. There’s a Nativity scene for Christmas, a menorah for Hanukkah, and then something a little different: an arm holding an apple, with a snake coiled around it.

It’s a gift from the Chicago branch of The Satanic Temple. Called “Snaketivity,” the work also has a sign that reads “Knowledge Is The Greatest Gift.”

Nearby stands a sign in which the state offers a civics lesson — and explains it didn’t have much of a choice:

“The State of Illinois is required by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to allow temporary, public displays in the state capitol so long as these displays are not paid for by taxpayer dollars. Because the first floor of the Capitol Rotunda is a public place, state officials cannot legally censor the content of speech or displays. The United States Supreme Court has held that public officials may legally impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions regarding displays and speeches, but no regulation can be based on the content of the speech.”

Illinois Secretary of State spokesman Dave Druker told The State Journal-Record the temple has the same rights as religious organizations. “This recognizes that.”

The Satanic Temple calls itself a “non-theistic organization” in its application to install the display.

In a GoFundMe campaign to raise $1,500 for the display, the group explains its mission: “The Satanic Temple—Chicago will no longer allow one religious perspective to dominate the discourse in the Illinois State Capitol rotunda during the holiday season. … Please consider what you may do to help us bring Satan to Springfield!”

The group has installed similar displays in other states in recent years. A more snake-prominent version of the display has been a part of the holiday scene on the lawn of the Michigan Capitol. Outside the Arkansas State Capitol in August, the temple presented a statue of a goat-headed creature named Baphomet, flanked by two children looking up at him, to protest a display of the Ten Commandments.

Despite its name, many of the Satanic Temple’s activities demonstrate a particular concern for fighting — or at least revealing — the influence of religion in public life. And satanic sculptures have so far been an effective legal strategy for making its case.

On its website, the Satanic Temple explains that its mission “is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will.”

The temple has also taken steps to protect its trademarks, especially against depictions that present its symbols as actually nefarious. Last month, the temple settled a lawsuit with Warner Bros. and Netflix, after a reboot of the teen witch show Sabrina used a copy of the goat-headed statue in an episode. The temple argued the statue “not only infringed on its copyright, but damaged its reputation by portraying the statue as evil,” The New York Times reported.

The Journal-Register notes other symbols that have been placed in the Illinois Capitol rotunda. Currently on display is a statement from the Freedom From Religion Foundation marking the winter solstice and asserting that “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

In 2008, a Springfield man got permission to install a Festivus pole at the statehouse, inspired by the holiday celebrated by the Costanzas on Seinfeld. A sign explained that the traditional airing of grievances would start early that year.

Yes, yes, powerless to stop this insanity. First Amendment protection. Blah.

Thank God that liberals have given us a sound playbook for handling this sort of thing. I see three approaches which could be utilized individually or in concert.

First, we can simply claim, no evidence needed, that the Satanists are neo-Confederates racists. A handy mob can gather and just tear down the display. The police will stand idly by. NPR and the NYT will write something glowing about tolerance and inclusion.

Second, we could apply the new Second Amendment “logic” to the First Amendment. The Founders, all racist white cis-gendered males, envisioned a Christian nation. That’s the religion they had in mind for the Bill of Rights and all else. They could not have envisioned the descent into and the expression of such high-capacity, fully-automatic cults of darkness, especially, as here, being openly admired in the land. Think of the new Amerikan immigrant children.

We know that only the police and the military need religion. Nobody needs a religious statute featuring an apple. A 150-year waiting period, a psychiatric examination, and a costly free exercise license practically suggest themselves. Common sense Luciferian control. No-one wants to take away the First Amendment. Wait… Per Bow Tie Stevens, the only man who was alive when the Consitution was adopted, we can just repeal the First. Done.

Lastly, in addition to the above measure, we may pretend this hellish display is really on some virtual social media platform. Surely, the temple loons promote it via Farcebook or Twit-er. Accordingly, the display, it’s promoters and supporters can be de-platformed and un-personed.  This hideous display mentions something about knowledge. That usually means facts. We know facts are as racist as an IQ test. Plus, there’s the whole “blame Eve” thing. #MeToo, original version. Hate must be undone wherever we find it. Diversity.

2018-12-04-capitol-displays-2_slide-71e11c8e49c527ac66e6093f3a082f664454515d-s800-c85

NPR. Tear it down and burn it.

A Most Dangerous DOJ Conspiracy Theory

24 Saturday Nov 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

People hate a conspiracy theory, unless a federal prosecutor proposes it, even if unfounded in law or fact. So it may be with Julian Assange. The Hon. James Goodale on what that means for Julian, the press, and free thought in America:

James Goodale: When I wrote the book pointing out the dangers to the First Amendment if Assange was prosecuted, I made it my business to see if I could gin up support within the media/press community to stick up for his rights, since his rights would affect everyone else’s. I had occasion to speak to many groups in connection with the promotion of my book. Every time I mentioned the fact that establishment press should advocate for Assange’s rights, I heard hoots of laughter or people shouting at me that I didn’t understand the journalism profession.

I was dismayed that I got very few converts in the journalistic community that would take my position that it was necessary to support Assange — not for Assange himself, but for the First Amendment.

…

There’s speculation on what Assange could be charged with. There’s a possibility that he could be outright charged under the Espionage Act for the act of publishing classified information. Then there’s the “conspiracy” theory — that Assange was engaged in a conspiracy with his sources by asking them or soliciting more information from them that the sources may have gathered illegally. Do you find that type of charge would be just as dangerous as a charge for publishing information?

I do find that that charge would be just as dangerous. As a matter of fact, a charge against Assange for “conspiring” with a source is the most dangerous charge that I can think of with respect to the First Amendment in almost all my years representing media organizations.

The reason is that one who is gathering/writing/distributing the news, as the law stands now, is free and clear under the First Amendment. If the government is able to say a person who is exempt under the First Amendment then loses that exemption because that person has “conspired” with a source who is subject to the Espionage Act or other law, then the government has succeeded in applying the standard to all news-gathering.

That will mean that the press’ ability to get newsworthy classified information from government sources will be severely curtailed, because every story that is based on leaked info will theoretically be subject to legal action by the government. It will be up to the person with the information to prove that they got it without violating the Espionage Act. This would be, in my view, the worst thing to happen to the First Amendment — almost ever.

I’ve been on the soapbox for this for over 10 years trying to wake everyone up to the dangers that exist with this approach. Therefore, the stories we’ve read with respect to government’s present action against Assange, it’s blood-curdling. It appears the government may try to adopt this “conspiracy” theory to apply to news-gathering.

Washington has been trying to gain extended power over the press for 40 years, through brute force and judicial gymnastics. Times may be bad enough, the people dumb enough, now, for DC to succeed. Our loss.

Free Julian.

UPDATE: The war on freedom continues: The UN would make more free speech criminal, especially for those would correctly criticize the third-world-ification of the first world.