Below is my column in USA Today on the most chilling moment from the Vance-Walz debate when the Democratic nominee showed why he is part of the dream ticket for the anti-free speech movement.
Here is the column:
In the vice presidential debate Tuesday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz pulled the fire alarm.
His opponent, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, cited the massive system of censorship supported by Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate.
Walz proceeded to quote the line from a 1919 case in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said you do not have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.
It is the favorite mantra of the anti-free speech movement. It also is fundamentally wrong.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the justice’s line from his opinion in Schenck v. United States. Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
‘Fire in a theater’ case supported government censorship
As I discuss in the book, the line was largely lifted from a brief in an earlier free speech case. It has since become the rationale for politicians and pundits seeking to curtail free speech in America.
For example, when I testified last year before Congress against a censorship system that has been described by one federal court as “similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., interjected with the fire-in-a-theater question to say such censorship is needed and constitutional. In other words, the internet is now a huge crowded theater and those with opposing views are shouting fire.
Goldman and Walz both cited a case in which socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Their “crime” was to pass out flyers in opposition to the military draft during World War I.
Schenck and Baer called on their fellow citizens not to “submit to intimidation” and to “assert your rights.” They argued, “If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.” They also described the military draft as “involuntary servitude.”
Holmes used his “fire in a theater” line to justify the abusive conviction and incarceration. At the House hearing, when I was trying to explain that the justice later walked away from the line and Schenck was effectively overturned in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio, Goldman cut me off and said, “We don’t need a law class here.”
In the vice presidential debate, Walz showed that he and other Democratic leaders most certainly do need a class in First Amendment law.
As I have said, the Biden-Harris administration has proved to be the most anti-free speech administration in two centuries. You have to go back to John Adams’ administration to find the equal of this administration.
Harris has been an outspoken champion of censorship in an administration that supports targeting disinformation, misinformation and “malinformation.” That last category was defined by the Biden administration as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
In the debate, Walz also returned to his favorite dismissal of censorship objections by saying that it is all just inflammatory rhetoric.
Recently, Walz went on MSNBC to support censoring disinformation and declared, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
That is entirely untrue and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the right called “indispensable” by the Supreme Court. Even after some of us condemned his claim as ironically dangerous disinformation, Walz continues to repeat it.
Free speech advocates view Harris as a threat
This is why, for the free speech community, the prospect of a Harris-Walz administration is chilling. Where President Joe Biden was viewed as supporting censorship out of political opportunism, Harris and Walz are viewed as true believers.
We are living through the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in American history. We have never before faced the current alliance of government, corporate, academic and media forces aligned against free speech. A Harris-Walz administration with a supportive Congress could make this right entirely dispensable.
Others are laying the groundwork for precisely that moment. University of Michigan Law School professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade has said that free speech “can also be our Achilles’ heel.”
Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, wrote a New York Times op-ed with the headline, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control.” He told readers that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”
Walz said in the debate that Vice President Harris is promoting the “politics of joy.” Indeed, the wrong people are perfectly ecstatic. Harris and Walz are the dream team for the anti-free speech movement.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Politicians – of both parties – simply try to win votes by promising things that voters/donors favor. Even things the politicians know will be overturned as “unconstitutional” by the Judicial Branch courts.
This practice, by American politicians, has existed for over 200 years. When the courts overturn those unconstitutional laws & practices, most smart politicians simply use it as political cover (pretending they wanted it but the courts won’t let them).
The real clear & present danger to the USA, are when dumb politicians don’t respect the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court or any court. The court rules a practice illegal and the politician is “subversive” subverting the U.S. Constitution – after the court appeals process runs it’s course.
For example:
If lets say 62 courts ruled that a politician lost an election. Instead of overturning 62 courts in the appeals process, the politician masterminds a coup/insurrection attempt to “subvert” the American model of government.
Hillary Clinton won 3 million more votes than Trump received, she could challenge it in court but ultimately she followed her oath of office. When Gore won half-a-million more votes than George W. Bush received, Gore ultimately was loyal to his oath of office.
That type of subversive politician (subverting court rulings) like Trump is the real clear & present danger to the American republic. Not Tim Walz who respects court rulings, even if his governing were deemed unconstitutional.
You talk without any understanding of the constitution. Total votes do not count the electoral college is what counts if the popular vote decide of the election, Trump would campaign in New York and California and possibly win. Republicans do not vote in that state because they know it is a lost cause.
💩💩💩
Winner of the day!
Free speech is indispensable right, though one should know dangers of free speech. The challenge lies in finding a balance between protecting free speech and mitigating its potential harms. Societies often grapple with defining boundaries, such as distinguishing between free expression and incitement to violence or hate. Ongoing dialogue and legal frameworks are essential to navigate these complexities effectively. Instead of relying on these political figures opinion (Trump, Harris, Biden or Walz etc,), read and observe and come to your own conclusion. My conclusion is America is still best at free speech. Problem is not a free speech. Problem is political language which is divisive. Don’t buy into political speech from any political leader.
Censors attack words they don’t like. You attack words you don’t like. What does that make you?
Attacking and condemning is not censoring. The government is not satisfied with condemning, it wants to block. What is wrong with you?
How Biden blew up the Middle East in five easy steps.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/04/opinion/how-joe-biden-kamala-harris-blew-up-the-mideast-in-five-easy-steps/
VDH has been a good analyst of the events in the Middle East in recent years. He traces Biden’s policy toward Iran back to Obama, who believed that bolstering Iran to create balance was somehow a good thing and that Iran would moderate over time. Neither has proven true. Biden is now commenting publicly on the kind of response Israel should initiate, and has ruled out attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Hard to understand.
His recent public comments on Israel’s prospective retaliatory action have been harmful. He should talk to them privately. He is undermining Israel’s ability to defend itself and it’s maddening.
It’s actually easy to understand. Like Obama before him, Biden believes that empowering Iran will make it a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. Of course, that belief is delusional and utterly insane (as well as being entirely unsupported by what normal people call “facts”) but there we are.
That appears to be what they think, but in light of the facts it is a belief that should be hard to sustain. There will never be a better time for Israel to act against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Since it is said to be US policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Biden’s public opposition to this is not helpful.
It almost looks as if federal government has been taken over by a hostile power.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/my-blood-is-boiling-furious-elon-musk-goes
The chicom/$ reset
* Disloyalty to the United States. Yes, traitorous. Are immigrants truly loyal to the United States? What’s the data say? Which groups within are disloyal?
So it is.
Every citizen is absolutely born naturally.
Why did John Jay and George Washington induce the Framers to require that presidents be “natural born citizens?”
What is the definition of “natural born citizen?”
The only definition of “natural born citizen” exists in the Law of Nations.
That description does not include Kamala Harris.
Anon– “Every citizen is absolutely born naturally.”
+++
Your remark reminded me of a thought I had. If a baby survived an abortion isn’t it as much a citizen with rights as an anchor baby? Isn’t killing it when it survives abortion murder?
It’s all murder bro
I mean in the legal sense, not the moral sense.
After 24 hours of fertilization, there exists a very young human being, a very young man or woman.
Abortion is homicide, or man kill.
Mothers are charged by God and Nature to nourish and protect her embryo, fetus, or baby.
Adoption is an unfortunate negative outcome.
Abortion is the worst type of murder.
* fertilization may not occur for as long as 5 days after rape. So you’re saying after fertilization? On the 5th day or 7th day? Quite a tragedy indeed. What about sterilization? Is that against nature? So women must live in fear. Ok.
* Thinking about the murdered Nungaray child. Two vicious animals attacked and murdered her. Then the young women so brutally murdered in Oct 7 Hamas attack in Israel. Certainly be afraid.
Yes, in the legal sense it is murder.
Oldman– Yes, I think it really is and I wonder why it hasn’t been said before. Once one is out of the womb killing is actual, legal murder. Perhaps it is murder as well as soon as one is viable in the womb. Not much different from killing a baby in the cradle.
At the risk of repeating myself, this is the science; this is the fact:
After 24 hours of fertilization, there exists a very young human being, a very young man or woman.
After 24 hours of fertilization, abortion is homicide, or man kill.
Mothers are charged by God and Nature to nourish and protect their embryos, fetuses, or babies.
Adoption is an unfortunate, negative outcome but better than abortion, which is murder.
Abortion is the worst type of murder.
George,
Under existing law most abortion is not murder, whatever you may think of it.
However, under existing law killing a child who has survived abortion may very well be murder.
Think of a child that has survived abortion as a sort of anchor baby. What would our most extreme supporters of abortion up to the time of birth think if we began immediately killing anchor babies of illegal immigrants? The screams of outrage could be heard from San Francisco to New York.
If an illegal’s anchor baby gains American rights at the time of exit from the womb, why not a baby that has survived an abortion?
Young – With respect in most states – what you are claiming is not true and the law is a mess.
Someone – NOT the mother can be convicted of murder for acts that result in the death of a fetus in the womb after some time – 5 months in some states.
While in the same states a doctor at the direction of the woman can extract the same fetus and kill it legally.
John,
True. And I oversimplified by using the term ‘murder’. However in most instances federal law trumps state law. That is why I used the term ‘anchor baby’. Federal rights as a citizen begin at birth for anchor babies so why don’t they begin at birth for all babies. That leads us to the question whether a state can elect to kill a non-criminal citizen of the United States without violating superior and fundamental rights.
Thank you for your clarifying points. Any legal discussion on this issue will have to get into thick weeds.
I think that by using the term fetus the intention is to maintain legal status as a non-person that can be destroyed.
However, once born alive, even by a botched abortion, I think it can be said that fundamental federal law makes anyone born alive a legal person who cannot be killed without committing murder even under state law once the fraudulent ‘fetus’ definition is swept away.
I don’t pretend to have a certain answer, just an argument that persuades me in part because I find live-birth abortion morally repugnant.
* Should murder charges be brought against the woman or doctor or midwife or all of the preceding?
* Should male gamete donor also be charged with murder? In records kept on abortions there isn’t data about the males involved. Why aren’t females asked the names of the unprotected males? Should they be notified? Held accountable? There’s a million of them year in and year out. Spawning without a license, perhaps.
Young – look up what happened to Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania.
Oldman–
I read about the Gosnell atrocities. I particularly remember a botched abortion in which a still living ‘fetus’ was tossed into a toilet and was seen clawing on the porcelain bowl trying to get out. It is difficult to imagine such evil in America. I had to stop reading about it.
None of these horrors attracted official interest until there was an investigation into his prescriptions for opiates. That they cared about. But at some point his atrocities could no longer be ignored.
* omg, speechless…
Do something good today everyone…
Having experienced many hurricanes in my lifetime, gone without electricity >3 weeks more than once, and got help from neighbors, family, friends and strangers, we came to learn one important thing. FEMA is worthless except for their / our $$$. Why? Here is why, in Hunter Biden’s dahdee own words
REPORTER: What do the states in the storm zones need, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT BIDEN: What?
REPORTER: What do the states in the storm zone — what do they need after what you saw today?
BIDEN: Oh, the storm zone.
REPORTER: Yes sir.
BIDEN: I didn’t know which storm you were talking about. They’ve got everything they need. And they’re very happy across the board.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/10/03/biden_confused_by_hurricane_helene_question_theyve_gotten_everything_they_need_theyre_very_happy.html
The Dems/MSM pounced on President Bush after Hurricane Katrina. Now it is the Democrats who get pounced bc Kamala’s Administration owns this catastrophic Hurricane Helene mess. Its Afghanistan, Palestine, Ohio, etc all over again. Democrats hate Americans, and North Carolina will likely vote accordingly for the upcoming election
No wonder Kamala / Kerry hate the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. ¡Chúpamela! as Mexicans would say
😉
DeSantis: Florida Learned Long Ago Not To Rely On FEMA For Any Emergency Rescue Or Rapid Response
So it created this odd circumstance that you have people there in western North Carolina. …. But you have a situation where the first people that they come in contact with is some state guard unit from Florida and not any of the federal assets.
So the reality is, I don’t think the federal assets were marshaled very quickly at all. But the lesson that I think people should take from this is one, we learned in Florida long ago. We don’t rely on FEMA to do any of that type of activity. We rely on FEMA to basically be a bank account. There’s federal programs in place. We get our people qualified for individual assistance, reimbursement for some of the debris. But we take the matters into our own hands for the preparation and the rescue and response.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/10/04/desantis_florida_learned_long_ago_we_dont_rely_on_fema_to_do_any_emergency_rescue_or_rapid_response.html
Estovir,
Well said.
Been in more than a few hurricanes myself. Dont recall seeing anyone from FEMA. Us locals took care of business and clean up ourselves.
It’s the same here, Upstate. I have experienced many hurricanes. After the worst for my area, we cut the trees up, removed the screen enclosures immediately and then waited for the more difficult repairs to be accomplished.
On another occasion, I saw FEMA. They clogged up the access route to the highway without coordinating with the police. They set up a center in the park to give people things they no longer needed. I saw an affluent crowd getting the freebies. My daughter only wanted ice, but they tried loading her with many things she didn’t need. They sent aid to another community that wasn’t hit.
They’re happy campers.
Anonynous, you are just confirming that you don’t understand and you have a serious reading comprehension problem. It’s hilarious that you think you figured something out. You can’t put two and two together and you think you figured it out. ROFL
Jonathan: Compared with Judge Eileen Cannon who dragged her feet for 13 months in the Mar-a-Lago docs case to benefit DJT, Judge Chutkan has moved with lightning speed in her election interference case. Here is her minute order from yesterday:
” Minute Order as to DONALD J TRUMP: Defendant’s ‘Motion to Extend Page Limits and Time to Respond to Government’s Motion for Immunity Determinations and for leave to file a Sur-Reply’ is hereby Granted in part and DENIED in part. The court’s Order is MODIFIED as follows: Defendant’s combined Response and Renewed Motion to Dismiss Based on presidential Immunity is due November 7, 2024 and may include up to 180 pages; the Government’s combined Reply and Opposition is due November 21, 2024; and Defendant may file a combined Reply and Sur-Reply by December 5, 2024. Signed Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/3/2024″.
What does the above mean? Basically, Judge Chutkan has given DJT and his attorneys what they wanted. The ability to file a 180 page reply to Jack Smith’s 165-page filing, and pushing off any determinations of presidential “immunity” until after the election. This clearly debunks DJT’s claims that Judge Chutkan is engaged in “lawfare” and “election interference”. But DJT will still be making the same false claims. Read Chutkan’s Minute Order and you will know that is all a lie!
Comradette Chutkan is corrupt and must be impeached and convicted.
Comradette Chutkan is a direct and mortal enemy of the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Actual Americans, and America.
Trump’s claim of election interference isn’t focused on a single written order by a judge, but rather on the generalized interference that bogus, politically motivated litigation creates when an opposing party or candidate is targeted.
Dennis – frankly Cannon moved faster than the case merited. There are many complex issues. Had Trump not managed a clear leglly compelling issue with Smith’s legitimacy – it likely would have taken another 9 months to go to trial – if the case was not dismissed on other grounds.
there is no time for Cmith to
Chutkan and much of the DC circuit is left wing shills. Smith was required to abide by DOJ policy and has been unable to move on this case since august – and yet he has ignored policy.
Trump has challenged Smith’s current actions USING SMITH”S OWN ARGUMENTS from prior briefs to Chutkan.
Regardless everyone expects Chutkan to ignore the law and give Smith whatever he wants.
But there is no time left for Smith and Chutkan.
At this point Chutkan/Smith are merely looking to smeer Trump by releasing inadmissible hearsay evidence and unsupported allegations in hopes of tipping the election.
They will likely succeed in more lawfare smeers. But so far those have backfired on Democrats – so Go For it.
All the Trump cases are on life support.
James’s case in NY received a hostile review in oral arguments. Idiots of you were convinced it had merits – the NY supreme court was openly skeptical of the whole thing.
I would note that there is even an effort to disbarr james over it.
Merchan KNOWS his case is dead and is stalling until after the election.
More charges have been thrown out in the GA case, Willis is facing contempt charges for defying subpeona’s and a hostile appeals court. The only question is how severe her punishment will be.
The Smith case is DOA. Smith and Chutkan can pontificate – but more and more J6 testimony is being released and there are now dozens of reasons the case is dead – including that FACT that the claims are just fabrications – many of Smith’s allegations did not happen.
“What does the above mean? Basically, Judge Chutkan has given DJT and his attorneys what they wanted.”
False.
“The ability to file a 180 page reply to Jack Smith’s 165-page filing, and pushing off any determinations of presidential “immunity” until after the election.”
That is incorrect – Chutkan’s immunity decision could not be made until long after the election even before, and the actual trial – if there was one, long after that.
“Read Chutkan’s Minute Order and you will know that is all a lie!”
All Chutkan is doing is PARTIALLY following the rules and required timelines for criminal proceedings.
Smith filed his revised idiot brief and the court was OBLIGATED to give Trump atleast 30 days to reply.
It does not follow that beause Chutkan followed procedures that violating would have resulted in an immediate appeal, that she is not biased and that Smith is not engaged in lawfare.
As you like to fixate on those things – DJT stock has been rising for the past 2 weeks and is +4 over that period
Today’s a good day to quote Jose Ortega y Gasset, (goodreads.com):
“The characteristic note of our time is the dire truth that, the mediocre soul, the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be mediocre, has the gall to assert its right to mediocrity, and goes on to impose itself where it can.”
What if there is a fire?
Would they have us remain silent? Yes, they would if it benefitted their political and electoral power. They do not apply the law blindly. Some Democrat politicians tried to justify rioting as an extension of free speech so as to protect their storm troopers from prosecution.
then it isn’t misinformation??? why is that even a question?
The Sturmabteilung. Very popular in the 1920’s and 1930’s.
@Flayer
It may sound absurd, but this actually happened to me once, in a theater. It was Spike and Mike’s Twisted Toons festival, and the theater literally caught fire. Granted, the fire department were the ones that handled it and herded us out, but the modern dems are clowns for citing tis very tired, very debunked, old, trope. Every time you see John Kerry pretending to speak with gravitas, picture him doing it with a big red nose, because he is a very wealthy and spoiled clown. Really; nothing more. So is Hillary (so is Obama, FWIW). Hillary is the girl you felt sorry for in junior high, but your attempts at friendship were unsuccessful due to her impenetrable pathology. We will not capitulate to these people. Feel sorry for them , because they are damaged morons. We are not, and we need to stop pretending that things will be fine if we don’t retake the reins. Money doesn’t matter. We do.
Now you know why the vote was severely restricted by design and intent in the severely-restricted-vote republic of the American Founders.
Now you know why immigration was severely restricted by design and intent to admit only homogeneous persons of good character who swore an oath to support the Constitution.
Now you know why America was never a genuine one-man, one-vote “democrazy,” but a restricted-vote republican subset of democracy.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“So, the lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”
– Richard A. Rowland, 1926
Some Democrat politicians tried to justify rioting as an extension of free speech so as to protect their storm troopers from prosecution.
That’s their street gang thugs in Black Lives Matter and Antifa. The ones that were rioting, pillaging, looting and burning – while Obama and Biden let them.
In 2014. Two years before Trump ran for office for Dennis, Gigi, FishFeces and Biden/Harris and the Mainstream Media to use as their excuse.
CONDUCT…disorderly conduct.
Republicans are in bed with the KKK, Nazis and Arian Brotherhood.
Stop with the nonsense
Only a simpleton could say that and believe it
When WW1 was dragging on, JP Morgan saw business opportunity and opened shipyards in NJ to build ships for sole customer with big pockets, the US government. Schenck and Bear would undermine his bottom line big time, so Morgan outsourced mob enforcement to crooked judges, including Holmes. Successfully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Shipbuilding_and_Drydock_Company
Soon after shipyards were erected, Germans managed to bring Lenin from Zurich to St. Petersburg, helping him bloodlessly take over Russia, and end their participation in WW1. Bad for business. Shipyards lay idle, until Owen Young, CEO of GE disguised as US representative, hatched Young Plan to replace previous Dawes Plan. New twist was to allow Germans invest in armament industry. All they needed, was an old bachelor with proven record of overthrowing government. WW2 followed, with JP Morgan’s shipyards back in business, churning Liberty and Victory ships at the total rate of 3 ships per 2 work days.
And yet again, there came along folks who would not be inclined to die for someone else’s profits. First in Germany (their Holmes was Freisler), then US.
Thank you so much, Mz. Marx.
We must proceed to oppress free individuals, nullify their foundational law, and impose the “dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the hired help such as yourself)?”
Let’s get at it then, shall we, comrade?
One for all and all for the collective!
Cheerio!
so Morgan outsourced mob enforcement to crooked judges, including Holmes. Successfully.
Pretty much identical to when the Democrat Kluxxers in the federal government outsourced mob enforcement of their racism to crooked judges. Also crooked Democrat presidents, governors, mayors, and police chiefs. Gigi didn’t want to mention them. From Woodrow Wilson during WWI that Gigi did mention, all the way through to FDR, Truman and beyond.
Like today: when crooked Democrat judges are sent out to destroy anybody standing in the way of Democrat hegemony in Washington DC. Parents at school board meetings, Catholics, pro-life groups, and any Republican threat to Democrat presidents winning reelection.
Gigi hopes nobody remembers the racism and police state fascism of all those Democrat presidents, governors, mayors, judges and police chiefs over the last century while she’s posting about WW1.
Holmes being one of those judges. Hugo Black being FDR’s (and Senator Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd) favorite. Gigi hopes nobody remembers that either.
And you don’t need to use a laughable radical left wing source like “Wikipedia”, that uses its constitutional right to censor free speech it doesn’t want seen to learn that.
Shall government make all choices for Americans? Is America the land of the free? Is miscegenation compulsory? Is discrimination unconstitutional? Is racism unconstitutional?
Government and jurisprudence are impartial and unbiased in equity by definition.
Citizens are free accept or reject.
Free citizens are free to discern and discriminate by any and all criteria.
* flash bulletin– anon and gigeeee all information is currently corrupted.
Yes, they’re all bad. Margaret Merriweather just had the big general mills idea that brought food to every table. Bad girl. Maybe you’d rather hunt and gather your own daily.
* Marjorie
Would they die for freedom? Merit, you have a problem with merit. It always shakes out to the most capable and you’ll lose one more time.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS–TOM DID.
Now, Tom.
It was Henry Kaiser’s ship yards churning out Liberty ships….because there was a war to be won.
“. . . take over Russia, and end their participation in WW1. Bad for business.”
How was Russia’s withdrawal from WWI *bad* for America’s shipbuilding business?
If anything, that withdrawal is *good* for business. Germany focuses its military on France, England, the U.S. (which it did). Those countries then need *more* ships to combat the increased threat from Germany.
“Walz proceeded to quote the line from a 1919 case in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said you do not have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was erroneous and enjoyed no power to legislate, amend the Constitution, or rule by fiat.
No legislation that denies a right or freedom, such as the freedom of speech, is valid, legitimate, licit, or constitutional.
Americans enjoy the absolute freedom of speech.
Americans are free, self-reliant, and possess serenity and acumen.
Americans enjoy the freedom to calmly and coherently assess threats.
Damages caused by a citizen availing himself of the freedom of speech may be litigated with maximal and debilitating penalties.
Persons opposed to the freedom of speech must pursue the process of amending the Constitution.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In 1789, the literal words and “manifest tenor” of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted for the benefit of individual citizens, for the minor benefit of the government, and to hold dominion in perpetuity.
In 1973, the Supreme Court wittingly and falsely said abortion (i.e. homicide) is a constitutional right.
In 1869, the Supreme Court said because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited.
Since 1913, the Supreme Court has said the U.S. Constitution is not absolute and will be replaced by the Communist Manifesto.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions 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, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, 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 for ONLY debt, defense, and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating the maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the Founders and Framers.
Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Communism is the religion of the mal content.
Trumptardism is the religion of the idiot.
Supporting trump has its consequences.
Rudy has lost his ability to practice law.
Now a former Mesa County, CO election official will spend nearly 9 years in prison for violating voting laws
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/county-clerk-who-tried-to-prove-trumps-claims-gets-9-years-for-voting-system-breach/
Aninny, so you like that THE LAW was enforced?
The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural-born citizen.”
If that fundamental law is enforced, Kamala Harris’ candidacy is unconstitutional.
Please provide the definition of “natural born citizen.”
In the history of mankind, the only definition of “natural born citizen” exists in the Law of Nations, 1758.
Law of Nations, 1758
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Law of Nations… one of the Constitutional documents of the Confederate Insurrection and the Klu Klux Klan.
If that is indeed the ‘Law of Nations’, obviously it must address the issue of nations/states who choose to allow the enslavement human beings. Whether they’re the Muslims of the Barbary Coast, or the Confederate states.
Given that it was written by some European aristocrat… where in that book does the author tell the Confederates and KKK worshipers since then that enslaving other people is perfectly lawful?
Where did it tell the Confederates and Kluxxers that even third and fourth generation slaves born in America of parents, grandparents, and great grandparents also born in America should never be allowed to run for President?
Those are fair questions to ask a racist with such a deep hatred of black Americans – or Latinos like Ted Cruz whose brown skin they never want to see in the Oval Office.
Please provide the definition of “natural born citizen” which exists in the U.S. Constitution but is not defined by that document.
The Confederation was never deemed a insurrection because by our Constitution it was each States right to dissolve itself from the Union. This is evidenced by no charges of treason or insurrection ever made. Slavery was a common legal practice in 1758. The Creek Indian Nation was among the largest slave owners in Alabama and the South. Blacks themselves owned blacks, endentured servitude of whites was common, why do you always try to divide American people of today with the cheery picked history of the past? The South was an Agricultural based economy, it was before mechanization. What do you think would happen today if the federal government proclaimed it illegal to use gas engines, diesel driven tractors or bunker C fueled ships without a viable replacement?
The KKK came about to maintain law and order in a post war apocalyptic South full of starving people and yankee profiteers. Put it in context of the times , practice of era and it may help you. I can’t speak for Georgie but I surely don’t hate blacks or Latinos, or anyone as long as they are productive law abiding citizens of America that support our Constitutional Republic.
That twinkie CO judge is a disgusting POS.
Racist George doing his part for the Confederate insurrection yet again.
Please provide the definition of “natural born citizen” which exists in the U.S. Constitution but is not defined by that document.
The Confederates were pro-slavery.
I’m pro-Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional.
Slavery was reprehensible and is gone, if not by Lincoln’s unconstitutional dictatorship, then by the passage of time.
America is left with the law.
Everything Lincoln did was and remains unconstitutional and awaits correction, as was the case with Roe v. Wade.
👍
Seems like supporting Hilary has consequences too.
HullBobby,
Good one!
Seems if they could Democrats would jail anyone who votes for Trump.
Great if you’re a undertaker but Monica said it just left a bad taste in her mouth.
An individual is a victim of a political lawfare attack because he supports Trump.
The entire nation is suffering the consequences for “a majority” of voters supporting the neo-con/dnc/hedge fund/ccp cabal.
That woman that was sentenced by that twink dnc apparatchik will be out on January 21st. Disgusting judgement – political intimidation in both cases, welcome to the coming marxist state.
My hope is that Pres. Trump pardons her.
The face of tyranny.
Supporting trump has its consequences. Rudy has lost his ability to practice law.
Meanwhile, Democrat police state fascist lawyers perjuring themselves and committing other crimes not only don’t get disbarred – they don’t even get charged with the felonies they committed.
Is it weird that Democrats would hope Americans don’t notice that Obama’s two Attorney Generals who perjured themselves to FISA courts and engaged in completely unethical behavior were never brought before the bar licensing them to defend their license to practice law? Much less indicted for those crimes.
And is it weird – or expected – that Democrats would gloat about a Republican being imprisoned for election violations while Obama, Clinton, Zuckerburg, Marc Elias, etc only got fines for the election campaign felonies they committed?
Not worth mentioning because being fined means it isn’t the same as this Republican who is rightfully being jailed (if the facts are as they’re being presented)?
Let’s all cheer for the justice system that DIDN’T sentence Obama, Clinton, Zuckerburg, Elias, et al to prison!
So proving you are engaging in lawfare is something you take credit with gleefully ?
What exactly is wrong with trying to prove something such as election fraud ?
Precisely why is the information necescary to demonstrate that our elections are trustworthy not freely available to the public ?
Why would any lawyer ever lose their law license for representing a client that some deem as unpopular ?
In what sane world would any lawyer face any discipline for allegations that have NOT been fully adjudicated ?
All you have accomplished is proving precisely WHY your censorship is evil, vile and destructive.
Bravo, John Say
“Why would any lawyer ever lose their law license for representing a client that some deem as unpopular?”
He didn’t lose his license simply for representing a client. He lost his license for repeatedly making false claims to the court that could be proven false.
No she will not – th case is a farce and will be overturned for numerous reasons – this is just more left wing lawfare.
Both the prosecutor and judge on the case were on the ballot in the election on the machines that Peters was allegedly involved in – a CLEAR conflict of interests.
They had absolutely no business in the case at all.
The immages of the machines that were obtained provided before and after evidence that the machines had been altered by DVS AFTER the election.
Peters atempted to go through the legitimate whistleblower process and was thwarted by government.
The Judge barred Peters from making her defense. He barred relevant defense witnesses, and he limited testimony of witnesses improperly.
WHY because nearly the same case was tried in NM with a different election official and the government LOST. So the Judge simply precluded the jury from hearing evidence similar or identical to that in NM to get a different result.
Left wing nuts like USSR style star chamber show trials and that is all this was.
Polled by the media atleast one member of the jury stated that they would have acquitted had they heard the evidence that the jury was not allowed to hear.
The left can not win FAIR trials.
Why is this recent obsession with censorship?
Blackrock thought it had cornered the media market for its and the DNC’s use, but Substack, X, and other outlets outside its control have shown its outlets to be largely propaganda mills that simply lie, obfuscate, and confirm liberal biases. The truth and the free flow of propaganda is an affront to our hedge fund overlords and their patrons.
Cuz that’s all they got.
I don’t believe the anti-free speech cohorts fully understand what the full impact of their movement will usher in. What actually is speech? At it’s core, it is the outward expression of one’s inner being. That expression can take on many forms, including the natural right to express nothing at all. The receiver of that expression has the natural right to interpret what that expression means. That is the balancing point between the sender’s free expression of speech and the receiver’s free interpretation. Enabling both sides equally infringes no rights and that is the essence of free speech. When the State steps on the free speech scales, rights are infringed on both sides. What may “feel” like a win for one side when they do this is actually a loss for both sides. Having your rights infringed by the government unwillingly is slavery. Having your rights infringed by the government willfully, is voluntary servitude.
@Olly
They don’t. They really don’t. They don’t understand the gravity of any modern leftist policy. Some of it is ignorance, the majority of it is generational, but you are absolutely correct: they do not understand, they do not have the capacity for foresight. This is something that is very important to fully understand. We are very much voting for our survival this November. ‘Sitting this election out’ is no longer an option that exists, and yes, it is THAT serious. this was true of the last three elections; let us hope that people take it seriously this time, because if we don’t, the words and elucidation won’t matter, you are not dealing with educated, elucidate people. You are dealing with people that honestly think AOC will buy them $1,000 boots while they sit at home playing video games on Twitch or making Etsy crafts, and those that wish to manipulate them. fully seeing their pliability. It will not be easy for a good long while, but we can still turn the tide. And it really is going to be ugly no matter how one slices it. That temporary ugliness will be far better than the future we are creating. No joke. I tell my wife all the time, this is not hyperbole or a funny Twitter comment. This is literally our survival as free people.
Show them that money and privilege do not matter.
they do not have the capacity for foresight. This is something that is very important to fully understand.
James, that is a very important point. I believe Liberals consider foresight as simply being “visionary”. They see their worldview as progressing towards something. Conversely, they view Conservatives as stuck in the past, with no plan towards a better future. The relationship is more like child and parent, with the Liberals being the children.
I don’t fault Liberals for their visionary thinking, we always need that. What I do fault them on, and this is a major problem, is they fail to consider the evidence of history to inform them of potential negative consequences. Conservatives are also visionary thinkers. The major difference is Conservatives study the past to plan for the future. The founding of this country and the constitution that was provided, is the best example of the latter’s method of visionary thinking. This war of worldviews leaves Conservatives in the unappreciated position of protecting Liberals from doing harm to themselves, precisely because that harm will impact everyone else in the process. This family of Americans might all want to go to Disneyland, but giving the keys to the car to our children to get there is suicide.
@Olly
Again, you don’t seem to grasp it, and I apologize if it sounds recriminatory, because I love your insight: they do not think forward. that may have been true in the Beatnik era, but now we are more or less dealing with spoiled children that cannot comprehend reality when it does not grant them what they personally want. These are the people we presume to pass the torch to. There is a larger point here I feel you are missing. There is no invisible wall these people will eventually bump into; no, this is what will be our future if we do not change course. We have GOT to accept that we have raised multiple generations of children who are still children after passing 40, and somehow we are going to have to deal with it, whether we like it or not. Your insight and wisdom are 100% lost on those that A: don’t accept it, and B: would have to take five more years of schooling to even understand the conversation. And that is 90% of the people waiting in the wings to take over for all of us. Unless you are very, very old, this will impact you and your forebears.
Your and my logic mean exactly zero to them. Again, this is very, very important to understand.
James, I accept your apology. But you should understand I used the term Liberal to contrast Conservative. It is true that 50 years ago that Liberal worldview led to what we now have, multiple generations of radically spoiled children who should be no where near positions of power. To them, history is irrelevant. There is nothing Liberal about them now. They are radical, anti-constitutionalists.
Come to think of it, this blog this the only evidence necessary that demonstrates how today’s Conservatives and the radical, (spoiled children) anti-constitutionalists think. It’s why I have significantly reduced my participation and largely ignore these Leftists.
“. We have raised children who are fully grown childre…”
We’ve raised fully grown criminals .
OLLY,
Great comment!
Free flow of ideas. Censor physics and rocketry without emotion. Physics is just a fact. Knowledge is a valuable tool.
Slavery looks fine if food, shelter and clothing are attached to those without.
Or if the Chief of the tribe is tracking you down and selling you.
“falsely shouting fire in a theater’ would, in the worst case, produce the same result as truthfully shouting fire in a theater but in the more likely case people will look around and assess the situation for themselves. That is calamity is not a foregone conclusion. Thus, from a practical sense, this statement fails to be a reasonable justification for limiting free speech.
More to the point, as Prof Turley develops in his excellent book, ten years after the 1919 Schenk case Justice Holmes wrote the majority opinion in another 1st amendment case in 1929 US v Schwimmer. In it Justice Holmes reasons regarding the rights of free speech, “if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” And clearly, the expression of thought then is speech. Thus Justice Holmes has done a legal reasoning 180 and if effect obliterated the “fire in a theater” rationale for constraining free speech.
Other than libel or treason, we should be prosecuting actions. Words without actions are just that – words. The Biden, Harris, Walz political philosophy, at least in regards to free speech, is dead wrong. The 1st amendment, is not our Achilles heel, but rather is foundational to American exceptionalism.
False;y shouting fire in a crowded theater is NOT illegal, and trying to make it illegal would be unconstitutional.
Holmes famous statement NEVER reflected the actual law or constitution.
John Say, you are to be commended for your clear representation of law and its “manifest tenor.”
In fact, even a doctor who makes a misdiagnosis that results in the patient’s death is absolved because it’s his freedom of speech to make any diagnosis he wants.
* it’s a false alarm. It’s illegal. It’s an alarm
* Holmes was just remembering his childhood and his favorite children’s story —> The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. Apparently it was the favorite of Walz, too.
There are no winners, only losers.
Thanks to whomever wrote the article. Anyone read Brandenburg?
We should recall that Trump is also being prosecuted under “The Espionage Act.” The Democrats first showed their dictatorial tendecies in the second Wilson adminstration. Prior thereto, the Democrats were the more conservative, small-government party. Grover Cleveland would be a die-hard Republican if he were alive today.
Turley,
You continue to state that: “the Biden-Harris administration has proved to be the most anti-free speech administration in two centuries. You have to go back to John Adams’ administration to find the equal of this administration.”
However, today’s article cites the Espionage Act of 1917, under which which President Woodrow’s administration jailed Schenck and Baer, whom you acknowledge were arrested and convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for passing out flyers in opposition to the WWI draft.
So, my question to you is: Can you please name a Biden-Harris policy that is more anti-free speech than the law that jailed Schenck and Baer? If not, is you constant refrain regarding Biden-Harris as the most anti-free speech administration since Adams mere hyperbole?
The Wilson administration targeted a small number of people – the consequences were draconian, but still the targets were few and mostly insignificant.
Biden/Harris are trying to censor information to ALL OF THE COUNTRY and from tens of thousands.
I would note they HAVE jailed people over free speech – hundreds of J6 prisoners did nothing beyond protest.
As one example.
Really, I don’t know what to say anymore. This is unelected (no one voted for Kamala. No one. This is the basic fact and it seems to be lost on nearly everyone on the left. Their lack of fury at being so hoodwinked in astonishing in itself) fascism of the highest order, perfectly in sync with the fascism of decades ago; it has taken hold again in the West, and we are so asleep as a society that we don’t see what is happening, just is in the 30s in Germany. The ‘elite’ presume they will be fine; they weren’t then, they won’t be now. They are not even elite or even particularly smart, just rich and storied, and it’s gotta stop, we have to take the power back, and this crosses cultures and demographics (my God, what an idiotic word. We are all people. The dems used to at least have the pretense of believing that. No longer). This is more pernicious given modern advances that simply did not exist years ago. We are in big, big trouble. Stop voting dem in America. For quite literally *anything*. This could get real ugly real fast. Please, let’s try to evert that. Thank you Professor and all for all you do. This is real bravery in 2024. If globalists like Hillary had their way, all of us here but the trolls would be in jail, and eventually even they would not be spared the key. We do not have to be Britain, which I fully expect to be in ashes after a single year of modern labour rule, and don’t kid yourself, it is *rule*, not governance.