The Livingston County (Mich.) Sheriff’s Office is seeking criminal charges against a Howell woman who posted nasty attacks on Twitter to criticize recent public meeting comments by anti-maskers. Kasey Helton seems an entirely unhinged and uncivil person. However, as will come as no surprise to regulars on this blog, I do not see the basis for such a criminal referral, which creates a chilling effect on free speech.
Helton posted juvenile and insulting tweets about a purported nurse who complained of E. coli on masks: “Nurse E.Coli b/c she’s full of” followed by the poop emoji. She also tagged St. Joseph’s Health, saying “I believe she’s on your staff?” She added attacks like a “dangerous RN sponsored by Schoolcraft College” a “pathetic purveyor of health misinformation.” The posted videos include one from a Brighton Board of Education meeting in which a woman claiming to be a nurse calls masks ineffective and “a restriction of one’s breathing.”
Helton is the face of our age of rage. However, Sheriff Mike Murphy decided to refer the matter for criminal charges under MCL 750.411s, which states the elements of the offense as:
“(a) The person knows or has reason to know that posting the message could cause 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts of unconsented contact with the victim.
(b) Posting the message is intended to cause conduct that would make the victim feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.
(c) Conduct arising from posting the message would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.
(d) Conduct arising from posting the message causes the victim to suffer emotional distress and to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.”
All four criteria must be met.
The referral shows how such ambiguous statutes undermine free speech. Much of the speech on the Internet can make people feel subjectively “intimidated,” “harassed,” or “molested.” Just being shown on such postings can cause “contacts” or harassment.
Sheriff Murphy seemed to acknowledge that he is pushing the legal envelope on this referral but said that he has lost his patience:
“We have done our share of these, trying to get some clear understanding of the line for criminal charges vs free speech. I am not going to waste a lot of time and resources if these aren’t going anywhere. But it seems the ante keeps getting up’ed with the hatred in social media posts..
… At the end of the day this will give us insight into the appetite of the prosecutor’s office on these issues. If they don’t end up issuing charges, we can say to future complainants that we won’t waste the time.”
Free speech should not have to depend upon “the appetite of the prosecutor’s office” or the patience of police chiefs. I have little sympathy for people like Helton who vent their anger on social media in this way. However, she is the price of free speech. I would rather have her angry diatribes than the criminalization of speech.
132 thoughts on “Michigan Woman Criminally Investigated for Social Media Attacks on Anti-Maskers”
Is it too late to change my vote from Biden to Trump?
OT: Judge Holds Hospital In Contempt: Give Ivermectin To Dying Woman Or Pay $10,000-A-Day Fine — ZeroHedge
After a judge found Virginia’s Fauquier Hospital in contempt of court in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a COVID-19 patient who was denied being prescribed Ivermectin, the hospital said Tuesday that it is complying with the court order.
Christopher Davies, the son of the patient, Kathleen Davies, told the Fauquier Times that two doses of Ivermectin – generally used to treat parasites – were given to the woman at 8:45 p.m. on Monday. The Epoch Times has contacted Fauquier Hospital for comment.
It came after Judge James. P. Fisher, of the 20th Judicial Court of Virginia, signed an order Monday finding Fauquier Hospital in contempt of court or “needlessly interposing requirements that stand in the way of the patient’s desired physician administering investigational drugs as part of the Health Care Decisions Act and the federal and state Right to Try Acts.”
Furthermore, “given the gravity at hand,” the hospital has to pay “$10,000 per day retroactive to the date of the court’s injunction order filing,” the judge ordered, meaning that each day the hospital does not prescribe Ivermectin to Davies, they will have to pay the fine “until the ordered relief has been accomplished.”
Her family had requested the hospital give Davies, who had been on a ventilator since Nov. 3, Ivermectin to treat her COVID-19 as a last resort to save her life. The Davies’ family doctor had prescribed Ivermectin to the woman, but Fauquier Hospital resisted administering the drug and cited medical, legal, and other concerns, the Fauquier Times reported.
Typical troll online. Sounds like the Sheriff accidentally put his pu$$y hat on the morning he made these charges.
It should be known that the Michigan sheriff campaigned for Trump. The sheriff declined to disclose what tweets he believes were criminal in nature. Kinda smells like the ole sheriff was doing some campaigning again.
Oh my god–it’s not too late for you to hide under your bed.
The charges are a stupid mistake. It is clear the Sherrif understands that.
The conduct charged is disgusting, and hateful. It is NOT constitutionally illegal.
That said – if the elements of the crime as perscribed by the law are met – the sherrif SHOULD charge, and the prosecutor SHOULD prosecute and the courts SHOULD find the law unconstitutional.
The rule of law requires that government actually enforce the law.
It is the “rule of man” when the police and prosecutors have significant discretion as to when to charge and prosecute.
Sherriffs, Governors, Prosecutors, Presidents, do not get to make up whatever law they wish or ignore the laws the do not like – such as our immigration laws.
They must enforce the laws that are on the books, and not manufacture new ones from whole cloth.
It is the duty of courts to void unconstitutional laws. Of Juries to nullify the law where appropriate, and of legislatures to revoke unpopular laws.
Doing so is NOT politics – it is “the rule of law” it is the fundimental duty of government.
NOT doing so is lawless.
EXCEPT this same Sheriff completely IGNORED much more egregious conduct on the part of his political allies.EXAMPLES: The leader of the Mom’s for Liberty group which includes the two nurses,publicly and explicityly THREATENED the entire Brighton School Board. And the same folks in that group had a “Unmask Livingston” FB group that was removed from the platform for “bullying, harassment, and threats of violence”. Conduct that included publishing Kasey Helton’s phone number and a google map to her home while encouraging group members to harrass her including calls for physical harm. This harassment campaign directed at Kasey comes a whole lot closer to fitting the law that the Sheriff is using to persecute a political enemy. Lastly, the not so good Sheriff’s department completely ignored frantic 911 calls from a group of elderly Democratic women during Biden’s visit to Howell last summer. These women, includng several in walkers, were subjected to verbal and physcial assaults. Including from a maniac who menanced them with a running chainswa. Conduct that was so threatening that it caused a national news crew to back away out of safety fears. Yet the not so good Sheriff, cited “free speech” to defend his department’s failure to respond to frantic 911 calls.
OT (but related): Twitter To Punish Users Who Correctly Claim That Vaccinated Individuals Can Still Spread COVID-19 — ZeroHedge
Twitter, which dubs itself the arbiter of medical misinformation through its constellation of conflicted ‘fact-checkers,’ will start imposing penalties on users who claim that vaccinated people can spread Covid-19…
…a claim made by none other than the US CDC Director, the NIH, Facui [sic], and countless other officials.
In other words, Twitter will penalize people for spreading common medical knowledge about Covid-19.
“When tweets include misleading information about Covid-19, we may place a label on those tweets that includes corrective information about that claim,” reads a quietly updated section of its rules governing Covid-19 misinformation reported by Mediaite.
“We may apply labels to tweets that contain, for example… false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people.”
If you read the actual Twitter policy, you’ll find that it says “false or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the vaccine/b> (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people.”
OT (but related): Twitch bans left-wing streamers for using an anti-white racial slur — RT
The Amazon-owned Twitch streaming service has blocked several prominent left-wing streamers for using a derogatory term aimed at white people. The word in question – ‘cracker.’
After their latest live streams Hassan Piker and Vaush, both boasting a substantial amount of followers and known for commenting on current events and politics from a liberal point of view, have had their channels blocked for violating Twitch’s community guidelines that prohibit the use of offensive slurs.
It started when several moderators on Piker’s channel received bans from Twitch after using the word ‘cracker.’ The streamer then commented on the matter and also used the word several times. After that his channel received a one-week suspension.
The criminal, unassimilable, illegal alien, foreign invader hyphenates have destroyed entire American cities and finally made even themselves sick.
@ 00:15 Seconds
Good for you Mayor Breed.
I do not think that trolls should be prosecuted. It doesn’t matter what I think about what they say.
The line would be threatening violence.
Anyone who violates the law should be prosecuted.
Courts should find laws such as this unconstitutional.
It is NOT the role of police or prosecutors to choose which laws they enforce against whom – that is lawless, that is the rule of man, not the rule of law.
The Sherriff is right to charge this crime, if the elements specified by the law are met.
The prosecutor is obligated to prosecute,
and the courts are obligated to find that the law violates the first amendment.
This is no different from myriads of other things we seem to beleive are oppinions left to the discretion of executives, rather than LAW.
Our election laws MUST be enforced as written.
Governors and sec. states do not get to make up new ones to suit their politics or anything else.
Our immigration laws must be enforced as written – if some of us, all of us, the current president, do not like those laws – they can go to the legislature and ask they be changed.
Every person in government – local state, federal swears to uphold the law – that is the law as it IS, not as they wish it were.
The way we get rid of bad laws is to enforce them and expose the legislature to the backlash that generates.
She was an internet troll who felt entitled to financially ruin the nurse by reporting her to her supervisor.
She contemptible, but I still believe in Free Speech.
What she also does not realize is that there’s a difference between medical masking, where the masks are discarded and replaced regularly throughout the day, and wearing masks for days, weeks, or months at a time. Kids who wear masks all day touch their desks, that have collected respiratory droplets, dust, skin flakes, and who knows what else floats around in an elementary school classroom, and then they rub their nose, contaminating their mask.
If you open the bathroom door to exit, open any store or office doorknob, and then touch your mask, congratulations, you’ve got E coli on your mask.
I recall picking up a to go order, unable to take my eyes off the cashier’s mask. Trying to identify the source of all the stains. He must have worn that mask, in the kitchen, for months. Was that an oil stain, or did he have a runny nose last March?
Look around you. Some of those masks are rank.
Just because some people are careless about personal hygiene, that doesn’t mean everyone is, and this is not an argument that legitimates the banning of masks. On the contrary, it supports regular disposal and replacement of masks. While wearing a mask offers you little or no protection, it does offer others protection from you, if you are carrying a virus, wittingly or otherwise. Sneezing in someone’s face has never been regarded as polite, never mind hygienic. Infected droplets from your respiratory system get propelled metres away even during ordinary speech, but especially during singing, shouting or sneezing. unless stopped in their tracks such as by a mask. I recommend you wear a mask, change it regularly, and you’ll help reduce the spread of the virus. I am not an expert, but I listen to people who are.
I recommend you wear a mask, change it regularly, and you’ll help reduce the spread of the virus. I am not an expert, but I listen to people who are. — Derek Williams
To which experts do you refer? The ones who said masks don’t work and aren’t necessary, then later flipped to saying wear masks everywhere, all the time (including outdoors, at home, and during sex)? Those experts?
Hmmm, we should reduce the spread using experimental mRNA vaccines too…
It’s well-established that surgeons wear masks to protect their patients from opportunistic infections. There’s also a reason why parents tell their kids to cover their mouth when they sneeze. When you’re mid flu, try sneezing in someone’s face and see if they catch anything. Then, when your next urge to sneeze comes up, stand back, keep your distance and sneeze into your sleeve. When you have done this research, do let us know the results. Do the people in the direct path of your infected breath catch your flu more often?
I suspect that you’re anti-mask simply because you see this as a “Left versus Right” thing, rather than having concern for others in a public health issue. But if you really are willing to sneeze in someone’s face, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near you.
Masks work both ways. Refer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
I suspect that you’re anti-mask simply because you see this as a “Left versus Right” thing, rather than having concern for others in a public health issue. — Derek Williams
So you are a troll…
I asked whom do you trust for a specific, non-political reason.
Not all masks are created equal — N95 masks, considered the most effective at protecting a healthy wearer from C-19, are difficult to source and relatively expensive. Moreover, “public health” officials request N95 masks be reserved for healthcare providers. The masks recommended for protecting healthy people from C19 are much less effective. Homemade masks’ effectiveness are anybody’s guess.
Additionally, how a mask is worn — its fit and use — has substantial impact on it’s effectiveness. Does it fit tightly around the nose and chin? How many people pull the mask below their nose? Or remove it to drink, eat or speak?
For these reasons, most masks do little in the healthy user protection role.
OTOH, if the wearer is ill a mask, any mask, does provide some attenuation and diffusion of their normal exhalation, if correctly fitted and worn. But there again, is the fit and use problem. However, even with a properly worn and fitted mask, a sneeze or cough creates an overpressure which breaks the mask to face seal and expels substantial amounts of breath, moisture and contaminants around the user’s face — while a mask may prevent a linear ejection of matter directly from the wearer’s nose or mouth, it stills allows that matter’s introduction into the immediately surrounding air.
One might well ask why someone ill with C-19 (or any other illness) would insist on going out in public for non-essential reasons in the first place…
Experts first considered masks unnecessary for the public, then a panacea to help stop the spread, along with social distancing and lockdowns. Yet, infection rates climbed. Experts first considered the experimental mRNA vaccines a panacea to stop the spread by immunizing the jabbed, but now… not so much. Yet, infections are climbing, again, in locales both highly vaccinated and under mask mandates.
And here I sit in a state with no mandates and one of the lowest infection rates in the nation.
Have you had your booster yet?
An “expert”, or researcher can and should change their mind in the light of new evidence, pretty much the whole point of research. People who do not change their mind in the light of new evidence are merely obstinate. There can be any number of reasons for differing infection rates, as the experience of countries like Sweden attest. Your “low infection rate” today can change very quickly if no-one takes the precautions known to minimise the spread of the virus.
The fact that many people do not wear the masks properly is not a valid reason to ban masks. You may as well ban cars, because some people are bad drivers. If you are infected with a virus and you breathe over other people, there is a higher risk that you will pass on your infection than if you do not. A mask, properly worn, reduces that risk.
“A mask, properly worn, reduces that risk.”
Maybe, but jurisdictions with strong mask mandates are often experiencing higher rates of infection than those without, California versus Florida for example.
In any event it isn’t just mask; it is mask plus person and the realities are that ordinary people will not wear masks with the same discipline as medical people in a medical environment. Even mere hand washing by staff in hospitals has to be enforced regularly to be effective, and doctors are the worst offenders.
With a general population masks are more political theater than a preventive measure.
Add to that masks can lead to bacterial infections. They may increase total risk.
I will believe our government cares about spread when it stops letting infected people illegally cross the border and then ships them as disease vectors throughout the country.
A new and terrible disease may be coming to your town courtesy of the always stupid, probably crooked, and now senile occupant of the White House.
“Masks work, but they are not infallible. And, therefore, keep your distance.”
If the masks work so well why does Florida have a lower infection rate than California?
Sometimes it is better to pull away from “studies” and peer reviewed articles and look outside the window to see what is actually happening.
“Are they really working?” “No.” “Darn, time for more “studies””
Maybe what is really happening is a study in itself.
Post hoc erat propter hoc fallacy. If you’re arguing that wearing of masks is causing infection rates to be higher in California than in Florida, then you’d need to have properly researched and evidentially ruled out other reasons, such as social distancing, relative local population density, climate etc.
“Looking outside the window” is not a valid substitute for peer-reviewed research. In a few months, it may swing back the other way.
In other words the real world is less real to you than models or theories.
Last December i was present when California hardened its closure and mask mandate and I watched while its cases soared while other jurisdictions did not. I posted about it here.
Sometimes reality is better for finding out what is happening.
Stop feeding the troll. It feels good exposing his idiocy, but not as good as he feels getting all this attention.
“Post hoc erat propter hoc fallacy.”
It’s “ergo” not “erat.”
More importantly, Young did not commit that fallacy. He asked you a perfectly appropriate question, based on your premise. If you cannot answer the inconsistency in your premise, then the problem is yours, not his.
Just because something happens after something else, doesn’t mean the ‘something else’ was the cause. It may be, but there are usually other factors to consider. You haven’t adduced any evidence that wearing masks is a direct cause of the spread of viruses. Your opinion doesn’t count. Links to reliable sources will do.
@Derek Williams:: Not that it will slow down your inept rhetorical abilities, bur you’ve a) mislabeled @Youg’s argument as psot hoc …, and b) even while misapplying one fallacy you commit one yourself. I have yet to meet anyone who seriously believes that “wearing masks is a direct cause of the spread of viruses.” That’s patently absurd. What’s more absurd is your use of that straw man to deflect from your position. @Young was not, in my view, stating that as his premise. Rather, he was pointing out the general ineffectiveness of masks to provide any meaningful protection: either to the wearer or the folks the wearer encounters.
You also began with another ridiculous straw man in your response to @Karen: No one in the thread ever said that “sneezing in someone’s face has [ever] been regarded as polite,” or anything remotely like that. You went on to state that, “Infected droplets from your respiratory system get propelled metres (sic) away even during ordinary speech, but especially during singing, shouting or sneezing. unless stopped in their tracks such as by a mask” The whole discussion from there has been on whether masks can, in fact, “stop” anything in its tracks. It was observed that n95 masks — which are properly fitted and used — are somewhat effective. Meanwhile, you’ve said nothing to challenge the assertion that non-n95 masks, as a general rule, are anything but useless, even setting aside discussion of fit and use.
I’m sorry to have burned your straw field down. Have a nice day.
There are so many used masks on the ground, if this virus was a lethal as they say, why aren’t there disposal bins for them??
An “expert”, or researcher can and should change their mind in the light of new evidence, pretty much the whole point of research. — Derek Williams
Experts who repeatedly leap to conclusions, only to change their opinion when confronted with contrary information or because of political considerations, are not trustworthy. That most masks readily available to the public do not stop viral transmission was well known before C-19. That a non-sterilizing vaccine does not prevent the targeted disease’s transmission in the vaccinated was similarly well known.
When the C-19 infection rate was high here in August and September, few wore masks and practiced social distancing. The infection rate fell nonetheless — despite dire predictions by many experts, whose opinions appear to be more informed by political issues than actual public health considerations.
If you want to wear a mask, then by all means do so. Knock yourself out. A ban on mask usage is not the issue — government-enforced mask mandates are.
The point of my original post was simply this — many experts disagree about the science behind masking and mRNA vaccines (to name but two examples). But only those experts whom disagree with politically powerful public health experts are censored. Referencing your quote above, how can anyone change their mind in light of new evidence, if researchers presenting new evidence which conflicts with the prevailing public health orthodoxy are censored?
People changed their mind about Newton’s Laws after reading Einstein. Politicians changed their minds about same-sex marriage, slavery, divorce, healthcare and any number of other things, in the light of new evidence. I have been wearing a mask since the start of the pandemic, and it has not “knocked myself out”. Everyone I see on public transport and in stores is wearing a mask. No-one has been knocked out. Masks are a nuisance, and they don’t protect you from others, unless they’re N95 or equivalent, but they offer some protection to others from you, if you’re carrying a virus. The mask fabric catches potentially infected water droplets from your breath, so they don’t immediately enter the respiratory system of someone standing close to you. No-one is saying they’re infallible, but they’re better than breathing your infected air directly into someone’s face. If you wish to breath infection on to a complete stranger, than I consider that selfish and borderline misanthropic. The so-called ‘political Right’ had no problems ostentatiously wearing masks when they were claiming they afforded protection from AIDS – declared to be “God’s punishment for gays”.
“People changed their mind about Newton’s Laws after reading Einstein.”
Some did, i.e., those who believe that new knowledge invalidates preexisting knowledge. Those who understand the truth about how science develops — that new knowledge *adds to* the body of existing knowledge — never fell for that.
People changed their mind about Newton’s Laws after reading Einstein. — Derek Williams
And if Einstein had been censored because his theory disagreed with Newton’s?
Deflect and dismiss all you want — no one is challenging your right to wear a mask. That you do not understand that (or that “knock yourself out” is a figure of speech which means “do as you wish”) is not our problem. Government-enforced mask mandates, experimental mRNA “vaccine” mandates and censorship of information contrary to the current politically driven public health orthodoxy are the problem.
The science behind masking is not settled. Respected experts disagree that masks are effective at stopping C-19 transmission. Data from masked and unmasked locales show either similar infection rates, or lower rates, in the unmasked places. Those are facts.
I suspect that you’re anti-mask simply because you see this as a “Left versus Right” thing, rather than having concern for others in a public health issue. Derek Williams
Remember this comment? You’re deflecting and dismissing facts and logic which disagree with your preferred position on this issue. Does that constitute fallacy?
YouTube Censors Bombshell Joe Rogan Interview With Cardiologist Peter McCullough — ZeroHedge
Einstein did not thoroughly invalidate Newton.
Newtonian physics is STILL taught in schools and colleges.
Roads, bridges, skyscrapers are all designed and constructed based on newtonian physics.
We are not debating issues where there is little or no difference in results for 99.99% of normal world conditions.
Newtonian physics fails – when we are applying it to astronomical bodies traveling near the speed of light.
It works perfectly for the brooklynn bridge.
The “evidence” that masks would not work was available form the start.
The laboratory perfect conditions effectiveness of an N95 mask is 77% – that is not sufficient to reduce the transmission rate of original Covid from 3.8 to significantly below 1.0 – even under perfect conditions.
I would further note that we are discussing the use of FORCE.
Experts can change their minds in the light of new evidence.
And that is precisely why such expertise can NOT be used as the basis of public policy.
We can not use FORCE – aka Government against people without near certainty that our actions will result in a significant net public good.
Where “new evidence” is likely to change the mind of experts – the use of FORCE can not be justified.
You are peronally free to listen to the “experts” of your chosing.
But you may not impose their views on others BY FORCE.
The fact that most people are not going to wear proper masks or wear masks properly
IS a very appropriate reason to NOT mandate masks.
No one is seeking to ban masks.
They are banning FORCED masking.
Those are not the same.
You are free to mask.
I cannot recall who the contributor was that posted the following linked essay on masking for Covid but I am appreciative for its sober insight. I learned a lot about masking and it demonstrates how misguided it is that health researchers rather than occupational and environmental scientists are driving the government’s masking policies.
Even n95 masks worn properly have a laboratory measured effectiveness of 77%.
That is not sufficient to reduce the transmission rate of the original Covid variant below 1.0.
It is not even close to sufficient to reduce Delta or Omicron.
If you fail to reduce the transmission rate below 1.0 – all you accomplish is increasing the duration of the epidemic.
Reductions in transmission rate that do not bring it below 1.0 are the equivalent of having the epidemic in slow motion.
The outcome is the same. Deaths are the same.
It is arguably worse – because the other impacts of the epidemic are worse. Jobs losses, suicides, economic damage, drug use, other negative impacts on health are increased by prolonging the epidemic.
All of this was understood BEFORE this all started.
Even without studies, it was mathematically demonstrable that the laboratory perfect world effectiveness of n95 masks would accomplish little more than delaying the inevitable.
The so called experts either KNEW or should have known their recommendations could not work.
If something can not work when deployed with mathematical perfection – how is it going to work in the real world ?
It’s well-established that surgeons wear masks to protect their patients from opportunistic infections.
Surgeons wear surgical masks for two reasons. First, we don’t want any blood or bodily fluid to hit us in the mouth, and second, we don’t want our saliva or drool to spill into the wound. We don’t wear them for viral protection.
You bring to mind that quote from President Regan. to paraphrase: Its not that liberals don’t know anything. Rather that so much of what they know is wrong.
“cover their mouth when they sneeze.”
That’s a good idea. And a hell of a lot more practical, and physically and psychologically healthy than wearing a mask.
“While wearing a mask offers you little or no protection, it does offer others protection from you . . .”
So a mask can stop droplets from going out, but not in? That makes no sense.
Laws are created for EVERYONE.
If masks do not work as used by nearly all people, then they can not be mandated.
Next the claim that your mask protects others rather than you is equal idiocy.
Masks attempt to filter particles – passing out, and passing in.
If they fail – they do so each direction.
Regardless the data – from 13 different Randomized Controlled Tests since 2000 including several recently in Denmark and India found no statistically significant long term impact to masks.
Maybe the masks are not worn properly,
Maybe the masks are inadequate.
Maybe, Maybe, Maybe – it does not matter – the masks were ineffective and therefore unsuitable and immoral as a public policy.
If you wish to beleive that YOU can wear a mask properly and attain a personal benefit – you are free to do so.
And it si even possible that you MAYBE right – that if you mask and are meticulous about fit, mask type, hygeine etc – that either by luck or by fastidiousness you may avoid Covid.
But that is YOUR choice. The costs are born by YOU, the benefits by YOU.
What you can not do is mandate that others must be as fastidious as you.
Or mandate public policies that will only be effective if everyone is fastidious as you.
I would note that in practice – with trained medical staff and PPE far more effective than is used in public, fully protected medical staff – masks, sheilds, gowns, gloves, serving in Covid wards – 97% tested positive for Covid antibodies after 2 weeks.
One of the problems with most of the public policies regarding Covid is they fail to grasp fundimental mathematics.
Epidemics end when the transmission rate for a virus sustainably drops below 1.0 – the more significantly below 1.0 the more quickly the end.
N95 masks are 77% effective in a laboratory. In perfect laboratory conditions that means that masks reduce an R0 of 6 – the transmission rate of Delta to 1.38. Any reduction of the transmission rate that is still above 1.0 is INEFFECTIVE – the results will ultuiumately be the same, the same number of people will get infected and die – it will just take longer.
A mask CAN reduce your chances of getting Covid in a single encounter.
It may even make you fortunate enough to be among the lucky people who never get covid – if most others do not wear masks and the epidemic is of short duration.
Masking as a public policy is ineffective. As an individual choice it MIGHT be effective depending on your behavior and that of others.
The law is clearly unconstitutional. Regardless, the sherriff is obligated to enforce it until that is established.
The nurse has other remedies – Libel and defamation claims are not constrained by the first amendment.
You can interfere in the life of another with your speech – and you can be held accountable civilly for the damage you do.
How do they charge someone with a crime for the purpose of substantiating that such a crime shouldn’t be charged at all? It seems like the plan was just to throw something against the wall to see if it sticks. It puts the prosecutor between a rock and a hard place. He loses one way or the other. Then again, that may have been the intention after all. I tinks I smells a rat.
We have never had unfettered free speech. Perjury is not legitimate exercise of free speech, neither is libel, and nor are incitement to riot or incitement to crime. Fraud likewise is prosecutable as are racial slurs in certain jurisdictions. When it comes to “balance” in journalism, such as in live interviews, relative power is important, such as hearing the “points of view” of 1930’s Nazis who have the guns, versus Jews stripped of German citizenship. For there to be true freedom of speech, there has to be concomitant freedom TO speak without threat of violence.
As for this notion of ‘Left versus Right’, I think that is unnecessarily polarising, provoked by the rhetoric of Trump, setting up difference where there is ample room for agreement, such as in healthcare provision, civil rights, and so forth. Too many are loaded for bear, and resorting to Strawman logical fallacy. Not everyone on the Left is necessarily a ‘woke’ Communist, and not everyone on the Right is necessarily a racist Nazi.
“We have never had unfettered free speech.”
– Derek Williams
Americans have always enjoyed the absolute unqualified freedom of speech – unfettered free speech – while it has always been wise to be critical and careful when availing oneself of it.
Certainly the absolute right to keep and bear arms and the absolute freedom of travel in cars require much discipline to preclude adversely impacting other Americans and having to suffer the consequences.
“…there is ample room for agreement, such as in healthcare provision, civil rights, and so forth.”
– Derek Williams
It is difficult at best to discern this word salad. Suffice it to say that there is absolutely and unequivocally NO possibility of constitutional governmental healthcare provision, not Medicare or Obamacare, as healthcare provision is not mandated by or enumerated in the Constitution. Healthcare is a freedom and right of individual Americans and healthcare provision occurs in the free markets of the private sector by free individuals who freely choose to participate in the free market healthcare industry.
There is no such thing as “civil rights.” Civil rights are not mandated or enumerated in the Constitution while rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of citizens are.
Your “racist Nazi” ad hominem attack against Americans who support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution is fraudulent and artificial, and is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you are a communist who espouses the principles of the Communist Manifesto. It’s not working, comrade.
If you believe your freedom of speech allows you to lie to a court of law, defame someone, swear a false document, and incite a riot with impunity, then you are not only mistaken, you are delusional. I might saty, “by all means give it a go, and let us know how you get on”, but I have neither desire nor intention to incite you to commit a crime.
Civil rights most certainly DO exist in law, and enforceably so, ever since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, alongside numerous state ordinances extending the scope to include LGBT+ and other disliked minorities.
The Constitution does not, and was never intended to govern every human act. It is only necessary that a law not be UN-Constitutional,
As for healthcare, it is entirely possible to set up a US national healthcare system comparable to that in every other First World country, that looks after everyone, even those who currently have to choose between feeding their children and insuring. To do so is in no way unconstitutional. All provisions of the ACA (“Obamacare”) continue to be in effect, with some limits on the Medicaid expansion.
The rest of your post is Strawman fallacy.
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…
The “Civil Rights Act” is unconstitutional and must have been adjudicated as such by the Supreme Court, most of the Justices of which must be impeached and convicted for failure to adhere to the oath they swore to support the Constitution.
Obamacare is also unconstitutional and the Supreme Court failed to do its sworn duty to adjudicate it as such.
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln illegally denied constitutional secession, prosecuted an unconstitutional war, and illegally suspended habeas corpus, having been told directly by Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” were improperly ratified by illegal alien freed slaves (who must have been compassionately repatriated and summarily deported under contemporary immigration law) and the successors of “Crazy Abe,” with a gun to America’s head and under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
To realize the oppressive, onerous, tyrannical and despotic dictatorship you desire, you need to move to Cuba, China, Vietnam or North Korea et al., comrade; they like it there I guess.
More strawman and bloated, unconstructive invective. The Civil Rights Act 1964 ensured constitutional rights for African Americans and other minorities. It is ergo and ipso facto “constitutional”.
An Act that “ensures constitutional rights for African-Americans and minorities” does not make the Act “ergo” and “ipso facto” constitutional. Notwithstanding, at least you chose an act that is.
The Supreme Court only gets involved in Acts whose constitutionality is being challenged. It doesn’t proactively scrutinise every piece of legislation that gets passed in the USA. When ‘Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States’, challenging the consitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, reached the Supreme Court, the court ruled that the commerce clause of the Constitution authorized Congress to enact this type of legislation. Earlier, on May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9–0) that racial segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the states from denying equal protection of the laws to any person within their jurisdictions.
If you want to have the 1964 Civil Rights declared unconstitutional, a law that has stood for 57 years and benefited millions of people of colour, then you’ll have a lot of people to convince on both sides of politics.
Sir, did you read the very last sentence to my very brief comment??.?.?.?
I have just re-read your comment, and I now agree that you acknowledge the CRA 1964 is constitutional. Thank you for pointing this out.
The fact that I re-read your statement and then corrected an error is evidence of “academic rigour”. That you ridicule this, is evidence of childishness.
Correction “lin’s statement”.
Why are you responding (@ 8:29, in which you stated, “The fact that I re-read your statement…”) to me??? -Did you possibly notice that my “icon” is orange-coloured and that the person to whom you intended to respond is a gray-coloured “Anonymous?” Please direct your responses to the proper commenter
Unfortunately, there is no Edit or Delete feature on this page, nor does the “Leave a Reply to” say whom you’re replying to, and to make matters worse, the Reply option disappears once you get a few layers down, yet you can still reply by choosing one higher up, but it doesn’t always put the Reply in the right order. Not a great thread management engine.
All of your assertions are false. Name calling is not rebuttal. It should further be noted that you call yourself “Anonymous”, so, someone who does not have the courage of their convictions.
We have never had unfettered free speech. Perjury is not legitimate exercise of free speech, neither is libel
You should sign on to the legal team for Mike Lindell. A court just turned down his civil suit against The Dail Mail for alleging he was carrying on an affair and he was buying alcohol. Just two lies, the judge said didn’t really matter. Sounds like you could take the judge to school on free speech law.
Libel is an actionable offence. Your example does not prove that you can defame someone with impunity.
O.J. Simpson killed two innocent people with impunity.
“Let’s go Brandon” stole an election with impunity.
It is not legal to kill people other than in self-defence, whether they be “innocent” or not. Your Simpson example doesn’t wash. A civil court jury found him liable and ordered him to pay $33.5 million. He was jailed in 1997. Trump did not win the 2020 election, otherwise he would still be president.
63 million aborted babies beg to differ.
As for this notion of ‘Left versus Right’, I think that is unnecessarily polarising, provoked by the rhetoric of Trump,
Suuuurrre, thats the ticket….Its Tumps fault. because before 2016 we never ever considered politics. Sure, I got it.
Shhhh(another fool that thinks President Trump started it, instead of the voters electing him to ADDRESS THE PROBLEM)
If you think Trump brought the nation together, the evidence speaks otherwise.
“Let’s Go, Brandon” shut down pipelines in America and opened them in the Soviet Union, aka Russia.
“Let’s Go, Brandon” raised the price of gas to $6 per gallon.
The president does not fix the price of gas, other than by Congress levying taxes – the market does.
The market is affected by demand and supply. When the president blocks drilling leases and closes pipelines he changes supply and causes prices to increase.
Biden used his 2020 presidential campaign to oppose drilling in the remote, 19.6m-acre Alaskan refuge, which is considered sacred by the indigenous Gwich’in communities and is also home to polar bears, caribou, snowy owls and other wildlife, including migrating birds from six continents. These measures have not been carried out with the objective of increasing the price of gasoline, which fluctuates all the time, and is affected by a lot more than this particular decision.
Whether or not you think these things matter, Biden was elected on, among other issues, a platform of developing cleaner energy alternatives to oil. Trump on the other hand was in part elected on his promise of “beautiful, clean coal”. Yet power generation from coal fell to a 43-year low in 2019 and renewables look set to overtake coal production for the first time ever. Coal is demonstrably not “clean”, and is only “beautiful” when it is turned into diamonds. At any rate, the coal industry did not revive under Trump’s stewardship.
” measures have not been carried out with the objective of increasing the price of gas”
Makes no difference what the”objective” was. What counts is the practical result. The administration has also blocked and delayed drilling permits in all federal land and cancelled the Keystone pipeline and threatened other pipelines. Under Biden we went from energy independence to energy dependence almost overnight. Poor people, minorities and women affected most.
In 2020, the United States imported about 7.86 million barrels per day of petroleum from 80 countries, so it is not “energy independent” by any means. Renewables on the other hand made up nearly 20 percent of utility-scale U.S. electricity generation in 2020, with the bulk coming from hydropower (7.3 percent) and wind power (8.4 percent) – all generated within the US. If the zero carbon target is to be reached, energy will increasingly have to come from renewables.
We were also exporting energy in other forms. The net result favored us. The carbon zero target is a fantasy. The environmental costs of wind power are yet to be calculated but are still rising as birds are slaughtered and aged blades pile up.
Oil will run out one day, ideally before it poisons the Earth. If you believe it’s going to last forever, and that it doesn’t do significant damage, you’re on a fool’s errand. Of course there are problems with any solution, including wind turbines, but the drive should be away from oil, uranium, coal and other high pollutants. If oil companies are smart, they will be investing in alternative energy technologies that leave a safer planet for our kids.
“In 2020, the United States imported about 7.86 million barrels per day of petroleum from 80 countries, so it is not “energy independent” by any means.”
I guess you didn’t feel like including this “inconvenient” fact:
“In 2020, the United States exported about 8.50 MMb/d of petroleum to about 174 countries and 4 U.S. territories.”
That fact, of course, made the U.S. a new exporter of petroleum in 2020.
“Oil will run out one day . . .”
The Malthusians have been declaring, since forever.
“before it poisons the Earth.”
The Chicken Littles have been clucking, since forever.
“What counts is the practical result.”
True. But the fact is that Biden’s “green” zealots want higher fuel prices. That way they can force people out of fossil fuels, declare the fossil fuel industry dead — and relegate us all to bicycles and blackouts.
“. . . which is considered sacred . . .”
Whatever the rationalization, the fact is that Biden’s statist policies are killing the energy industry’s ability to be productive. And then simple economics: Less supply (due to government regulations), combined with the same demand, equals higher prices.
“When the president blocks . . .”
And when his administration discourages financiers from loaning money to energy-producing companies, . . .
The president can certainly influence the cost of energy.
If he or she carries out a policy that impacts on the price of gasoline, it will generally be to try to reduce the cost to the consumer, since no president ever pledged to increase the cost of fuel and then expect to be elected, let alone remain elected. There are costs attendant to the provision of energy that reach far beyond the present generation in terms of significant environmental damage, and concomitant damage to health. These ultimately effectuate costs on the consumer too.
“There are costs attendant to the provision of energy that reach far beyond the present generation”
There are also social costs to not providing energy efficiently as Europe is learning to its grief and those costs, sometimes in lives, are payable immediately.
If you believe that the world should continue to rely primarily upon pollutants to generate energy instead of moving towards renewables, you’re in an increasing minority. It is possible to produce energy efficiently without burning stuff, for example from hydro-electric dams.
Clarification: “increasingly small minority”, i.e. getting smaller all the time
In California they are seriously talking about tearing down dams because dams, too, come with an environmental cost. Try to build a new dam now. Nuclear reactors can produce energy without carbon but eco-nuts don’t want those either.
“Clarification: “increasingly small minority”, i.e. getting smaller all the time”
Ask Copernicus how important it is for everyone to agree with you.
I am well aware of Adams’ “Tyranny of the Majority”, but having everyone disagree with you can be problematic, especially if you’re running for election.
All energy measures come with some cost, so it’s a matter of weighing up which will cause the least damage to the environment, health and the economy.
“All energy measures come with some cost, so it’s a matter of weighing up which will cause the least damage to the environment, health and the economy.”
True, and as the experiments with different forms of energy production continue we are discovering that ‘burning stuff’ is still the method that best balances all three goals. That probably will not always be, but until then it is unwise to abandon what is keeping civilization alive.
“I am well aware of Adams’ “Tyranny of the Majority”, but having everyone disagree with you can be problematic, especially if you’re running for election.”
Even universal agreement can run into and break against a solid wall of what is true.
Eliminate all fossil fuels and we can be universally happy and in agreement while we all die.
We won’t “all die” if we eliminate fossil fuels.
“We won’t “all die” if we eliminate fossil fuels”.
No. Clearly that was hyperbole. There will be some left alive but they will wish they weren’t.
Nearly every significant thing in your life, food, heat, power, clothing, etc comes to you by virtue of fossil fuel energy. Ships, trucks, planes and trains are rushing it to you every second of every day. What happens if it all stops and you rely on windmills?
“What happens if it all stops and you rely on windmills?” – more hyperbole.
“What happens if it all stops and you rely on windmills?” – more hyperbole.”
No. The dying starts.
No-one saying “Let’s all rely only on windmills”, so Strawman and hyperbole.
You have your solar, your wind and your hydroelectric. It isn’t enough to harvest, mine, or make your stuff and deliver it to you. What else have you got? Dying.
“from hydro-electric dams.”
That would be the very dams that environmentalists oppose and tear down? While they also oppose nuclear.
The ultimate goal of environmentalism is deprivation and human suffering. It is a nihilistic ideology.
This clown is a complete wackjob; he totally ignores “the science” in order to deflect the “inconvenient truth.”
Oil will not “run out” and oil is not derived from fossils.
The deepest fossil was found at 7,401 feet.
The deepest oil was found at more than 40,500 feet.
ABIOTIC OIL A THEORY WORTH EXPLORING
Oil may not be formed the way we think it is.
It’s our nature to sort, divide, and classify. We label ourselves to identify political leanings, religious beliefs, the food we enjoy, and the sports teams we cheer. The oil industry too has its own distinct labels which include the “Peak Oil” theorists, those who believe the world is fast depleting the finite supply of fossil fuel; and the pragmatists, those who recognize that engineering and technological advances in oil drilling and extraction continuously identify new reserves that make oil plentiful.
And there’s a third group you may not know. These people are deeply interested in oil and its origins, but their advocacy of “abiotic theory” has many dismissing them as heretics, frauds, or idealists. They hold that oil can be derived from hydrocarbons that existed eons ago in massive pools deep within the earth’s core. That source of hydrocarbons seeps up through the earth’s layers and slowly replenishes oil sources. In other words, it turns the fossil-fuel paradigm upside down.
Perhaps the breakthrough for this theory came when Chris Cooper’s story appeared April 16, 1999, in The Wall Street Journal about an oil field called Eugene Island. Here’s an excerpt:
Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330’s output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.
Then suddenly—some say almost inexplicably—Eugene Island’s fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.
Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs, he says.
All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth’s surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.
More recently, Forbes presented a similar discussion. In 2008 it reported a group of Russian and Ukrainian scientists say that oil and gas don’t come from fossils; they’re synthesized deep within the earth’s mantle by heat, pressure, and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated.
The idea that oil comes from fossils “is a myth” that needs changing according to petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov, speaking at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. “All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits.”
Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences estimates that 60 percent of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin and not from fossil fuels. He says companies should drill deeper to find it.
– U.S. News & World Report Sept. 14, 2011
COAL AND OIL CONSUMPTION – MY ANALYSIS AND SOURCES
Oil BTU 211 700 000 000 000 000
Coal BTU 177 682 700 000
GLOBAL ANNUAL BTU: 211 700 177 682 700 000 ( = lbs of water) = 13 216 010 346 328 961 024 cu ft = 23038 cubic miles of water going up 1 degree per annum; FYI the circumference of the Earth is 24,900 miles, greatest depth 6.77 miles.
Oil 17 706 150 000 tons (17.7 billion tons of CO2)
Coal 25 219 tons
GLOBAL ANNUAL CO2 output = 17 706 175 219 tons of CO2 added per annum. 17.7 trillion tons cannot possibly be ‘of not effect’.
These outputs are ADDED to existing natural temperature enhancing events, such as volcanic eruptions, that have been going on already for millennia. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of average coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide. So the mass of fuel is 0.35 of the CO2 generated. Apply that to the 200 000 000 tons of CO2 generated by volcanoes and it comes to 70 000 000 tons of fuel.
Heat generated by burning one ton of coal = 20 150 000 million BTU so multiply by 70 000 000 tons of fuel and that comes to 1 410 500 000 000 000 BTU.
8818 (US)Tons (2000lb) per year
Amount of heat generated by 14,500 British thermal units (Btu) per pound. The typical carbon content for coal (dry basis) ranges from more than 60 percent for lignite to more than 80 percent for anthracite.
Heat generated by one ton = 20 150 000 million BTU, so 8818 tons produces 177 682 700 000 BTU total.
Carbon Dioxide: Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of average coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.
Global total = 8818 x 2.86 = 25 219 tons of carbon dioxide annually
100 million barrels per day (42 gallons – produces 26 gallons of gasoline) = 36 500 000 000 barrels per year (36.5 billion)
1 barrel produces 5 800 000 BTU of heat. BTU is the amount of energy required to heat 1 pound of water by 1 degree, so 36 500 000 000 x 5 800 000 = 211 700 000 000 000 000 pounds of water go up by 1 degree every year.
1 pound of water (lb wt.) = 0.016 cubic feet of water (ft3 – cu ft)
Convert 211 700 000 000 000 000 pounds of water to cubic feet: 3 391 108 696 275 801 cu ft = 23 037 cubic miles (circumference of earth = 24,900 miles).
That deals only with the heat added to the ecosystem, just by oil, but not the effect of carbon dioxide emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions are therefore 3.15 times the mass of fuel burned. One gallon of crude oil weights 7.21 pounds, so one barrel contains 42 gallons x 7.21 = 302 pounds of oil.
Burning 36 500 000 000 barrels x 302 pounds per barrel is burning a total of 11 242 000 000 000 pounds. Total carbon dioxide from this is 11 242 000 000 000 * 3.15 = 35 412 300 000 000 pounds of carbon dioxide = 17 706 150 000 tons of CO2 annually.
Now, let’s add them all together.
Oil BTU 211 700 000 000 000 000
Coal BTU 177 682 700 000
GLOBAL ANNUAL BTU: 211 700 177 682 700 000 ( = lbs of water) = 13 216 010 346 328 961 024 cu ft = 23038 cubic miles of water
Oil 17 706 150 000 tons
Coal 25 219 tons
GLOBAL ANNUAL CO2 output = 17 706 175 219 tons of CO2 added per annum (17.7 trillion tons)
The above figures are for Oil and Coal, and do not include burning of wood, paper or plastic.
You might not be aware but this web blog only permits two hyperlinks per comment. I edited yours above so that it would post. If in the future you would like the readership to review more than two links, this can be accomplished by using multiple comments of two or fewer hyperlinks each.
You know what’s great about your list?
It’s a testament to man’s ability to produce the energy he needs for his survival.
The president does not fix the price of gas,
The President, through executive orders can, and in fact did, turn the United States into a net oil importer, when before Biden, the United States was a net oil exporter. Because Biden’s executive orders reduced the amount of oil produced in the United States.
Now you tell me, by the acition of the President altering the supply demand equation on oil, has no effect on the price of Gasoline.
But from leftist that see no correlation between drastic reduction of policing, and an increase in crime, simple cause and effect eludes you.
Not from what I am reading: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/us-drilling-biden-climate-oil-b1883388.html
You don’t agree with the move to renewables, others do, and it’s not only people you name-call ‘leftists’.
“. . . move to renewables . . .”
There is no such thing as “renewables.” It’s a meaningless term concocted by environmentalists to dupe the public. Every form of energy requires a non-“renewable” products, e.g., steel, plastic, concrete.
There is only: Efficient, reliable, inexpensive energy (e.g., fossil fuels) versus inefficient, unreliable, expensive energy (your so-called renewables).
And tornadoes didn’t ravage Kentucky et al. a couple of days ago.
The “WIND” did it.
The tornadoes have been completely exonerated in the absence of any evidence of a crime, right?
“We have never had unfettered free speech.”
You grossly misunderstand the meaning of an “unfettered” or “inalienable” right, e.g., the inalienable right to free speech. It means the unconditional right to take certain action, free from government coercion or permission. It does not mean, as you are implying, that one has the “right” to violate the rights of others, e.g., by committing defamation. A “right,” properly defined, does not sanction criminal behavior. It protects the individual from government acting like a criminal.
The statute is clearly an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment. However the door to this type of law was opened with the enactment of “hate crimes” which criminalized bad thoughts and unpopular attitudes. And the problem with bad laws is that they are never repealed, but in fact seem to expand into creeping authoritarianism. For example, Federal civil rights legislation was created at a time, more than a half-century ago, when some Southern juries wouldn’t convict racist whites for attacks on blacks. But those days are long gone, as the Ahmed Aurbury verdict demonstrates, yet the Federal statute continues to be applied in very liberal places like CA and Minn which have no history of racist juries. I read today that Derek Chauvin pleaded guilty to Fed’l civil rights violations, and his prison term will be served concurrently with his state sentence. So what was the point? The Federal prosecutors had nothing better to do? They certainly can’t argue that Minn failed to avenge George Floyd, so by wasting tax dollars on a second charge for the same crime, the Federal govt was simply grandstanding.
The “hate crime” statute class is frivolous and unconstitutional.
Judges and Justices who have supported this legislation must have been impeached and convicted for egregious abuse of power, usurpation of power, dereliction and negligence.
Where’s RIN TIN,TIN?
“Hate crime” is a necessary concept, in order to allow stricter sentences to be passed against individuals who single out their victims because of an innate characteristic, such as sex, skin colour, sexuality, or disability. If you’re white, you are not terrified of a KKK march, because you know they’re not after you. However, if you are black, then you have to re-evaluate your entire existence.
Thus, if you are a member of the KKK who specifically only terrorises blacks, thereby placing an entire black community in fear of their lives, a crime against a member of that community should be punished more severely.
The crime is property damage or bodily injury, comrade.
That you and the Politburo prefer the benefits and privileges of tyrannical and maniacal dictatorship does not nullify the Constitution.
Objectivity is an insurmountable obstacle for communists.
Your immoderate language and ad hominem does not address my point, and appears to be a copy+paste response without reading.
George, we have yet another troll. You say the sun comes up in the east, he will deny. He’s just in an endless loop of inanity.
Terrorizing, stalking, harassment, assault, battery, abduction, rape, murder, etc. are all in the category of criminal bodily injury and, therefore, illegal.
The color of skin does not bear.
The colour of skin certainly “does bear” if it is the sole reason for your list of “terrorizing, stalking, harassment, assault, battery, abduction, rape, murder, etc,” thus it becomes a ‘hate crime’. Hate crime is not a new offence, it is a loading of extra penalty for when you hunt down a disliked minority and single them out for “terrorizing, stalking, harassment, assault, battery, abduction, rape, murder, etc”
If a racist gang is out looking for blacks to kill, whites can sleep easy.
Let’s hear it for juicy smollet.
Smollett was indicted for disorderly conduct for paying two brothers to stage a fake hate crime assault on him and filing a false police report. In December 2021, he was convicted on five felony counts. Smollet is therefore not an example of the victim of a hate crime.
“Smollet is therefore not an example of the victim of a hate crime.”
He is a perfect example of hate crime victims these days, nearly all of whom have been fakers.
The notable but ignored exceptions have been Asians viciously attacked by black thugs, now becoming a common occurrence. Just behind that in numbers are whites viciously attacked by black thugs.
“Fakers” are simply not “examples of victims of hate crimes”, since there was no hate crime perpetrated against them. Someone cannot in any sense be described as a “victim of a hate crime” if no hate crime was carried out against them
In your other example, if “thugs” of any colour are allegedly attacking Asians soley because they are Asian, then that is a clear example of a hate crime. Your so-called “fakers” are not victims of hate crimes, and you appear to mentioning them solely to discredit this category of law.
Fakers are perpetrators of hate crimes against those they accuse.
Yet, often we see institutions continue to describe them as victims and demand remedial actions even when the fraud is discovered.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that lately those described and hailed as victims of hate crimes turn out to have faked it. It happens that so often “victim of hate crime” turns out to be a faker that it has almost become a part of the definition.
This category of law should be discredited because it is obscure and invites unequal and racist application. Laws should be clear and applied evenly to everyone.
Were you in possession of facts, you would have no need to filibuster.
Suggestion: Ban-for-life Derek Williams with the other hysterically adversarial and non-debate-accretive troll, Ben Marcus, for the crime of perpetrating an incessant, incoherent, factitious filibuster.
It’s the DNC Deep Deep State Dirty Tricks Filibuster-On-Demand and Lonely Narcissist Heart Club Deployed for the Communist Pre-Election Propaganda and Indoctrination Campaign.
You DNC DDS guys would probably have better luck just going for the election steal again.
Did John Wayne Gacy “hate” the 33 kids he slaughtered and dissolved with lye.
Speech, thought, belief and the holding of any and all opinions on every subject, including race, are eminently constitutional.
Right but it seems pretty obvious that the Sheriff is not interested in prosecuting this kind of thing and hopes to force the DA to set a precedent one way or the other. By choosing a defendant who presumably aligns with the DA’s political bent, the Sheriff has done a very neat bit of what Nancy Pelosi has been known to call jiujitsu. Prosecute now or forever hold your peace- preferably the latter.
That’s an interesting take…
A self-described rabble rouser. Exactly the type of person that the First Amendment should protect, even if she is vile and pernicious
Someone out there should take-up the challenge of making a tasteless, offensive video that shits all over Hanukah, and see how they like it.
Unhinged is an understatement.
Prime example of the degree of irrational thinking and behavior in this country.
I expect it to get worse.
Professor Turley’s clear principles regarding the right to speak are always refreshing in these perilous times.
Let them talk; they reveal their stupidity.
That applies to right and left.
Look at this blog, posters like Anonymous EB, Natacha, Justice Holmes, JeffSilberman, Fishwings (apologies to those that I missed and for misspellings), reveal both their biases and their trolling.
Few of us take them seriously; every time that these Lefties post they reveal the moral bankruptcy of the left and its essential dishonesty.
Perhaps more shocking, they reveal they perniciousness of TDS pervading society.
The same can be said of the righties here. They are just as revealing about their own stupidity.
Comments are closed.