Control dorks of all stripes have only one mission: to control what is "allowed" to be said. Forget the marketplace of ideas, just obey. This is true of virtually every political stripe whenever they have the upper hand or the opportunity. Freedom of thought is scarey to most and resisted at every turn. KMA.
Greg, happy birthday and thank you for publicizing the violations of our Constitution by our purported public servants. They should be required to review Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
“Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy;” it is “the means to hold officials accountable to the people” in our “republic where the people are sovereign” and “the ability” (the power) “of the citizenry to make informed choices” (make our own choices) about public servants and public issues “is essential.”
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” See also id. at 339-341, 344-350. “Premised on mistrust of [all] governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts" by any public servant "to disfavor” (or favor) the “subjects or viewpoints” of our speech regarding public servants’ abuses or usurpations of power.
“For these reasons,” our “political speech must prevail against” regulation “that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” so regulation “that burden[s] political speech” is “subject to strict scrutiny,” which “requires the Government to prove” how regulation or punishment “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.”
In honor of our Constitution on Constitution Day, I propose considering an alternative to assertions that an act constitutes, e.g., "use of raw power" or "raw use of state power." Isn't a reference to "raw" power a mere euphemism of an abuse of power or, worse, a usurpation of power? If so, why not say so, especially when we're really talking about a usurpation of power which clearly violates our Constitution. Please consider the following:
You can thank the Supreme Court for creating the actual malice AKA hate standard for defamation lawsuits. Trump seems to be referencing his lawsuits against news organizations where he had to prove actual malice and for which the organizations paid him before a verdict. Since he just filed a whopper of a suit against the NYT I assume that’s what he is thinking and talking about in his usual scattershot style.
Pam Bondi’s remarks, however, from the Attorney General, are deeply disturbing and wrong.
Control dorks of all stripes have only one mission: to control what is "allowed" to be said. Forget the marketplace of ideas, just obey. This is true of virtually every political stripe whenever they have the upper hand or the opportunity. Freedom of thought is scarey to most and resisted at every turn. KMA.
I wish Rand was more like Ron =\
It's hard to believe Rand came from such a staunch proponent of free speech.
Greg, happy birthday and thank you for publicizing the violations of our Constitution by our purported public servants. They should be required to review Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
“Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy;” it is “the means to hold officials accountable to the people” in our “republic where the people are sovereign” and “the ability” (the power) “of the citizenry to make informed choices” (make our own choices) about public servants and public issues “is essential.”
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” See also id. at 339-341, 344-350. “Premised on mistrust of [all] governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts" by any public servant "to disfavor” (or favor) the “subjects or viewpoints” of our speech regarding public servants’ abuses or usurpations of power.
“For these reasons,” our “political speech must prevail against” regulation “that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” so regulation “that burden[s] political speech” is “subject to strict scrutiny,” which “requires the Government to prove” how regulation or punishment “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.”
In honor of our Constitution on Constitution Day, I propose considering an alternative to assertions that an act constitutes, e.g., "use of raw power" or "raw use of state power." Isn't a reference to "raw" power a mere euphemism of an abuse of power or, worse, a usurpation of power? If so, why not say so, especially when we're really talking about a usurpation of power which clearly violates our Constitution. Please consider the following:
"James Madison on Abuse and Usurpation"
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/07/james-madison-on-abuse-and-usurpation/
"Abuses and Usurpations"
https://constitution.org/1-Corruption/cs_abuse.htm
You can thank the Supreme Court for creating the actual malice AKA hate standard for defamation lawsuits. Trump seems to be referencing his lawsuits against news organizations where he had to prove actual malice and for which the organizations paid him before a verdict. Since he just filed a whopper of a suit against the NYT I assume that’s what he is thinking and talking about in his usual scattershot style.
Pam Bondi’s remarks, however, from the Attorney General, are deeply disturbing and wrong.