Twitter Troll Trump Merits NO Special 1st Amendment Protections From Critics - Especially After His Recent Racist Rampage

In the wake of the odious maggot Trump's Twitter fit on Sunday - against the progressive House Dem "Squad"  - his Twitter account use has again come under scrutiny.   But the Turd-in-Chief  even doubled  down with his verbal excrement in a  Monday tweet, in which  he dared Democrats “to unite around the foul language & racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular & unrepresentative Congresswomen.”   

But every sentient citizen knows the only one spewing racial hatred is the pervert -loving, white nationalist - admiring, bipedal orange cockroach,  Trump. Forget even for the moment that if Twitter had been doing its oversight due diligence Trump would have been cut off from his addiction long ago.  This is given he's violated every large and fine print rule for use in the social media book.  Of course, the Twitter medium itself is almost designed to incite  reckless diatribes and outbursts - especially in the hands of a deranged man baby like Donnie Dotard.

Any medium which facilitates instantaneous reaction and aggression should be prohibited from being used by a mentally deficient and/or disturbed White House occupant to interject himself into everything - or to make racist attacks. The very nature of the medium is to cater to impatience and instant brain farts, baseless opinions- often from the minimally educated and weak minded.  Why? Because it's simply too easy to spout off!   Contrast that with preparing something like a blog post for which at least some semblance of work, effort must be invested.  

Anyway, at least on one other front Trump's Twitter account has taken a hit. I refer here to the recent appellate court ruling (Second Circuit Court of Appeals) that has correctly deemed Trump's Twitter account a public (not private) forum.   Despite that the usual Right reactionaries - embedded in The Wall Street Journal's editorial enclave - seem not to agree. In their latest misguided burp ('Trump, Twitter and the First Amendment', July 12, p. A13) these nabobs of nonsense fault the court for denying Dotard the claim to a private account, i.e.

"The decision has sowed confusion among lower courts and led to expansive interpretations,"

Then quoting the core of the ruling verbatim:

"Once the President has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those views he disagrees with."

This is given how several blocked users sued Dotard for restricting their speech rights, correctly  contending that once he opted to use it to push policy it became a de facto public forum.   To remind readers, Trump has done this on multiple occasions, when all he had to do is get off his fat,  pompous ass and hold a proper news conference to announce policy decisions, i.e. to preserve his Twitter account from public forum conflation.

For example, he did this by announcing Christopher Wray as new FBI Director, as well as announcing a new military policy to prevent LGBT personnel from serving, as well as (early on in his term)  propounding policy via tweet to do with U.S. nuclear capacity.   Who can forget that infamous blurtation?

"We need to strengthen and expand nuclear capacity until the world comes to its sense regarding nukes."

At that point, indeed, Trump lost any claim to a private medium and the right to block critics with access to his Twitter account.   Further, the national media - each time it puts up Trump's tweets on evening news screens - reinforces the concept that his Twitter account constitutes a public forum because the tweets are deemed "nationally newsworthy". (Not that I agree, of course.).  Let's also bear in mind the White House itself has deemed  Trump's policy tweets "official statements" and the National Archives treats these "statements" as "official records".  So, case pretty much closed!

So, the claim by those blocked  that what Trump does amounts to viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First amendment, is spot on.  It's a pity The Wall Street Journal which is endlessly obsessing over free speech rights doesn't see this, instead babbling:

"Twitter is a private  platform.  As the Supreme Court noted last month in the Halleck case, 'when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor."

Ignoring the key word, "ordinarily".  Hence, once Trump began spouting policy proposals over his Twitter account he became a state actor, and it ceased to be a private entity .  So he could no longer justifiably "block users from accessing, replying to and retweeting his messages" for the offal they are.  And further, it is irrelevant (as the WSJ editors claim) that (ibid.):

"Blocked users can access President Trump's account without signing in, or criticize him on their own Twitter pages."

Yes they could, but using only their own pages-accounts would have vastly diminished power, i.e. reaching perhaps only thousands instead of millions. It effectively skews speech in the direction of those with power (or money, as the Citizens' United case showed).  Hence, in its way flouts First Amendment provisions.  And again, Trump himself opened the door to public- private medium conflation by announcing policy decisions on his account.  (Let's also bear in mind that by his unseemly and personal attacks on thousands of people he himself  has violated Twitter's user rules to the point where technically he should be banned from further use.)

Thus the Journal's claim:

"This argument too easily elides the distinction between public and private spheres"

doesn't hold water given that Trump himself,  by his misbegotten use of Twitter,  destroyed any distinction.  Again, if he acted like a real president as opposed to a 13 -year old dyspeptic brat, he'd announce policy decisions from the Oval Office on national TV, as opposed to via tweets.  In so doing he'd  preserve his account as a private entity. But the swine man baby is too damned lazy to do that and besides likes to keep his 14 million follower zombies charged up from tweet to tweet.

Still unable to grasp the court's decision or the plaintiffs' arguments, the clueless WSJ editors ask:

"Must all politicians agree to be Facebook friends with people who vilify or promote conspiracy theories about them?"

No, because  not all politicians are the source of vile conspiracy theories themselves, like Trump claiming two years ago that Obama was bugging Trump Tower.  Equally laughable is the following canard trotted out by the WSJ geniuses:

"Under the Second Circuit's ruling, politicians would have to choose between abandoning social media - which would limit their ability to communicate with voters - and tolerating harassment and lies."

Which is a total misreading of the decision.  In fact, all that any politician - or more exactly a president -would have to do is to act like a president to keep private and public definitions, forums separate.  As I noted above, that would mean reserving a proper national policy platform for policy announcements. You go in front of national TV at appointed times, to render your policy, you do not announce it on social media.

Of course, Trump will never learn that lesson because he is a 13 year old bully and buffoon at heart.  Hence, he will keep on projecting policy into tweets, or as the WSJ puts it, "promoting his unique brand of politics" and ways of doing things.

Fine, then he can suck up the criticisms of other Twitter users when they go after him for his ill chosen, ill timed  policy tweets as well as his racist dog whistles.  If this fool had a scintilla of self-control, moral vision and message discipline there'd be no need for appellate (or other) court decisions to set him straight.  Nor would there be any need for four black and brown women - members of the House  - to school him on unacceptable racist venom embodied in telling them to "go back where you came from".

Nor should the WSJ look to the Supremes to "ultimately clear up the confusion" - because there isn't any.   What we need clearing up is the mainstream media's perspective to see once and for all that the current occupant of the highest office is a vile,  gaslighting imp with no moral compass and no sense of decorum or decency.

Or let me put it this way: There wouldn't be any problems if we had a real president who respects the office and the Constitution.  That, instead of an illegitimate maggot who believes the presidency is running a reality TV show.   One replete with racist rants, ugly,  inhumane scenes (at the border), and treasonous acts.  In the case of the latter, even admitting in a recent interview that he'd welcome information provided by foreign governments to get re-elected.  Sadly, the only way to get rid of Trump's Twitter excesses and dog whistles may be to get him out of office once and for all next year.  The alternative is too grim to contemplate.

See Also:

• Opinion: Trump’s Tweets Prove That He Is a Raging Racist

And:

Donald Trump

Trump's Latest Tweets Are Not Just Racist, But Part of a Broader Reactionary Attack on the Left

Trump Learns Free Speech Is A Two-Way Proposition - He Can't Block Critics On His Twitter Feed

We all know by now the biggest Twitter Troll in the country is Donnie J. Dotard who wastes hours each day firing off blasts on every person he doesn't like (which is just about everyone other than Alt-Right Nazis  like Stephen Miller and fawning 'yes men' like Devin Nunes).   So, if I had Twitter and wanted to fire back: "You stupid, freaking orange- haired baboon!" he could block my tweet based on being a political enemy and harsh critic. Well, no more.  Naomi Reice Buchwald,  Judge for the Southern District of New York - ruled that such blocking is against the first amendment and  violates free speech rights.. So if Dotard can reel off his slimy, attack tweets castigating everyone from James Comey to Rod Rosenstein to Mika Brzezinski we can fire back at him all the epithets we want. After all, isn't that what Twitter is for?

 The case against Dotard emerged from July, 2017,  when Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute discovered Trump had a habit of blocking users from his Twitter feed who "disagreed with, criticized or mocked him" (e.g. 'Hey, you orange, butt-faced Orangutan, Comey was right, you're wrong!").  Trump engaged in this one-sided baloney because he believed - as an illegitimately installed puppet pretender-  he was entitled to taunt, disparage, belittle anyone and everyone - but no one could return the favor....errr....fire.

But as the Knights argued, this blockage  violated "the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. "

Judge Buchwald herself  wrote:

"This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, block a person from his Twitter account in  response to the political views that person has expressed and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no."

Which is reasonable and logical because Trump is not our king, or a dictator....yet. Indeed, it may be strongly argued that he only serves (even as a pretender president) at  our pleasure - not we at his. We the Peo0le have final say over him, not him over us. And the White House is OUR house, not his, which we shall have to fumigate as soon as we get him and his nest of  vermin and vipers out.

To be more specific here, when a Twitter user blocks another the "blockee" is then unable to view the users' tweets.  This then turns into one-sided speech so the Twitter troll can taunt at will and not be challenged or criticized because the blockee can't see the objectionable fare. Thus, he is disabled from any return speech, hence is denied his free speech rights.

This is one of the basic rights Dotard still has to learn, that rights in this country are not 'one way' and if he continues to troll and bloviate and taunt with his stupid tweets he is going to have to expect return fire.

The Judge opted not to issue an injunction against Trump blocking Twitter users....yet. But that could change if this buffoon continues his one-sided antics.  Sadly, the overgrown brat and clown still hasn't learned that one does not govern by tweet.  But basically, we know the Twitter Troll in chief does this because he needs to keep his base of deplorables stoked and in high dudgeon against the rest of the nation, especially the "elites".

Will Trump ever quit his brash disrespect for norms and laws as well as the amendments of the Bill of Rights? Nope, not until we get rid of him. The sooner the better.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/79414/9-ways-authoritarianism-is-taking-hold-under-trump

NO! Nazis Merit No First Amendment Protections

                                                                                      
Neo-Nazi filth - such as these at Charlottesville-  do not merit first amendment protections given if they ever came to power they'd abolish them.

Walk down any city street in Frankfurt, Munich, Cologne or Bonn and you cannot help but notice there is robust free expression. Merely engaging German citizens of any of these burgs for a few minutes discloses it.   But one thing you will never hear is any defense of Nazi memes, nor will you see Nazi flags - unless you can locate a WW II museum. Indeed, even the effort to spread such toxic nonsense can earn the person a year or more in prison, and significant fines.

Have the Germans gone bonkers? Have they gone over the top? No, they merely learned from bloody, barbaric experience after 6 million Jews were dispatched in Hitler's death camps, and tens of millions perished in bloody fashion around the world - with over a million Germans who had to pay for Hitler's insanity. Germans learned enough from their history not to be so daft as to enable toxic memes and mind viruses under the pretentious baloney of "free speech".

In May, 1985, near Bielefeld, Germany, I met with two former Wehrmacht soldiers who themselves had resolutely refused to join the Nazi party. (About 5 percent did join to receive perks the others did not such as extra rations, clothes etc.)

In Teutoburger forest with Dieter, left, and Hans, right - along with our translator Reinhardt

The two former soldiers, Dieter and Hans, were part of a German choral group my wife Janice was then performing with. Anyway, we went to the Teutoburger Forest where one battle was fought near the end of the war.  When I asked Dieter and Hans about the Nazi influence in Germany they responded almost in unison:

"We learned to our lasting shame that the Nazis took advantage of our freedom principles (associated with then Nuremberg democracy) to put themselves in power and stay there long enough to destroy Germany and Europe. We now know much better!"

They were referring to how Hitler and his  Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei  or Nazi party used the democratic process itself to catapult Hitler into power and then used the mechanics of then Nuremberg government and the Reichstag to destroy all principles of free expression using the Enabling Act. See e.g. http://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictatorship/a-16689839

THIS is specifically why the Nazi party, Nazi offshoots or Nazi spokesmen cannot be allowed the privilege of free speech or protections under the First Amendment. Why?  Because we already know from history (in 1930s Germany)  the template they would use against our democratic, constitutional edifice. Simply put, we can't take the chance that history will repeat, ever again.

But Americans, having never undergone what Germany did, simply don't get it. Even the brightest - like fellow members of Intertel, fail to grasp why the Germans are as tough on speech as they are. Back in November last year I cited the words of fellow member Steve Mason writing in an essay: 'Dangerous Ideas', (Integra, Nov.-Dec, .p. 18) :

"Here's a really Dangerous Idea: The Holocaust is a hoax. It must be a Dangerous Idea because simply repeating those five words will get you jailed in  more than a dozen countries, including: Belgium, France, Germany, Romania and Poland."

Mason then made an absurd parallel putting the "holocaust hoax" on the same "dangerous idea" level as the Apollo Moon landings hoax. In the latter case,  citing all kinds of nonsense "evidence", e.g. American flag "rippling" on an airless world, from idiot lunar landing hoax websites.

This analogy showed Mason lacked any balanced rational insight to compare these two. In effect, comparing the claim of hoax for an actually recorded historical genocide to a nonsense claim which is easily refuted by reference to lunar laser ranging experiments - only made possible by the fact laser reflectors were left on the lunar surface....by humans.

Mason appeared to regard both ideas as merely equally "goofy". He scribbled, in regard to the lunar landing deniers (p. 21):

"The last I heard no one was locking them up.  Being goofy isn't against the law, so what is it about questioning the death camps that creates such a stir?"

Totally missing the point of why a serious distinction must be made. The upshot of actual German history, as my German sister-in-law Krimhilde put it, is that even frivolous dismissal of the holocaust plays directly into the neo-fascist platforms, as we beheld in Munich back in 2013, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-are-new-german-nazis-really-up-to.html

The Germans today take heed of George Santayana's famous words "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." They would rather err on the side of legal heavy handedness than regret it later when a future Fuhrer tries to duplicate the inhuman acts of the earlier one.  Impossible? Then read the Financial Times article below ('Ideas That Fed The Beast of Fascism Flourish Today') on how the same forces active in Europe in the 1930s are also present today:

https://www.ft.com/content/599fbbfc-a412-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6

The nations that prosecute holocaust denial do so in order to impose a painful reminder that one cannot just lie about the past as a cynical way to sweep it under the rug to thereby better enable similar horrors in the future.  To put it another way: They already experienced the horrors once,  they have no intention to do so again! Thereby harsh laws punishing the denialists (who effectively diminish the holocaust)  are intended to send an uncompromising message: "You spread this crap - undermining the historical truth- at your own peril. We will not tolerate your lies here!"

The same goes for racial supremacy doctrines such as today's Neo-Nazis spout. They can't be allowed to gain any more of a foothold in a nation already riven by race. The Nazis especially can't be allowed a say - in a park, city town hall or anywhere - because we know they are now also about enacting policy with an ally in the White House. (WSJ, Aug, 17, p. A1)  The Nazis cited in the piece also made it clear they no longer aspire merely to more marches and rallies but policy changes.  These could include everything from limiting immigration, especially of Mexicans and Muslims, to building a border wall using taxpayer money, to fielding a new "security" arm similar to the Nazi Gestapo.

A recent WSJ interview ('The First Amendment Is For Nazis Too', Aug. 26-27, p. A11)  with legal academic  Richard A. Epstein saw him trying to argue that even Nazis deserve first amendment protections. This coming from a Jewish academic who appears to have unlearned or forgotten the lessons of history, period.   He argues in abstract jargon about the "solipsistic left" and "nonactionable offense" but has no clue what these terms really mean - say as they applied when the Hitlerites used their speech to take over Germany.

He expostulates:

"There are certain harms that are nonactionable and offense is one of them. If I say something that you find truly offensive, you may protest, you may speak - but what you may not do is to sue me in order to silence me, or to get compensation from me. Counter speech is the appropriate remedy under these circumstances, suppressing speech isn't"

Which I can agree with  in nearly all circumstances - but not all.  That includes holocaust denial as well as circulation of Nazi memes and mind viruses including the proposed extermination of all untermenschen (inferior humans) and also the open advocacy of policies that would terminate the very free speech those like Epstein argue for.   Those were the same policies advocated by Adolf Hitler, as evident in his Mein Kampf, as well as promulgated by current Nazis. In Germany these riff raff are sued, fined or locked up and that ought to be a standard applied here too,.

If an ideology (like Nazism)  ultimately seeks to destroy the very  'free speech' it currently claims to use (under the 1st amendment)  we are now in a meta-context.  This is exactly the meta-context Hitler and his bunch methodically employed in the early 1930s to convert Germany to a one-party state with NO subsequent free speech for anyone but the Fuhrer - and certain of his groupies - like Joseph Goebbels and Rudolph Hess.

As my German friend Reinhardt put it, if an ideology has as its ultimate goal the extirpation of the very speech it uses currently to spread hate, it cannot be allowed circulation. It then becomes no different from the smallpox virus - say released by insane people under the doctrine that "all living things or potential living things, like viruses, have the right to survive and compete for existence in our world". 

In his WSJ interview Epstein claims:

"Freedom of speech means that you have the right to use your own resources to advance your own causes. But it doesn't give you, in the name of free speech, the right to take somebody else's telephone, somebody's house or somebody's anything to use for your own purposes"

Thereby making the point that freedom of expression is "embedded in the much larger and comprehensive system of property rights".

And yet Epstein appears to forget, or never processes, that this is exactly what the German Nazis did to the Jews. First, they used the very free speech allotted them by Nuremberg democracy to get enough people to believe in them and vote for them in the 1932, 1933 elections.  (In the elections held in March, 1933, a record 88.8 % of the electorate turned out, and 39, 343, 331 votes were cast. The National Socialists received 17,277,328 or 43.9 percent, entitling them to 288 deputies in The Reichstag.) Then, once in total power- after Hitler became Chancellor -  they terminated all extant liberties and the laws on which the German parliament (Reichstag) was based. (Google 'Enabling Act')  Then, they seized all Jewish property - including businesses, homes and bank accounts. And finally - they dispatched those dispossessed Jews to concentration camps where they were exterminated as "untermenschen", e.g.

Scene outside of Mauthausen concentration camp photographed by Russian soldiers who liberated that camp in 1945

THIS is precisely why NO Nazi ideas or memes must ever be permitted the "oxygen" of free speech to spread, ever again. Like the smallpox virus it must be isolated and kept at bay with a zero tolerance policy. Epstein himself is a blatant fool for even remotely considering modern day followers of this bestial philosophy to air their toxins.

Epstein, vaunted legal guru that he is, is also totally wrong about Google's firing of James Damore, the right wing nitwit who posted a ten page memo trying to tie women's job performance to their biology and innate mental aptitude. He insists (ibid.):

"Google is basically massively intolerant.  Here was a guy a data analyst, wo was not even against diversity. He said he wasn't".

Disclosing a naivete on a par with awarding Nazis free speech.  In fact, any person with more than air between the ears reading Damore's memo saw exactly how opposed to diversity he was, no matter what he "said". (Hitler also "said" he'd lead his countrymen to a greater, more enriched future and 'Lebensraum'. How did that turn out?)

As for firing Damore, Google was perfectly entitled to do so. In the case of 'Waters v. Churchill' the Supreme court made clear that an employee's speech is not protected if the employer  believes the speech might interfere with the efficiency of the employer's operations.  Since it is clear that allowing Damore's presence (after his memo went viral) would definitely undermine Google's efficiency of operations, it was clear Google had to give this right wing troll the heave ho, all the Right's whining aside.

Let me add here, for completeness, that preventing Nazis  "oxygen" for their speechifying need not depend on the feds to achieve it. We've already  shown here in Colorado Springs how a simple boycott can persuade a major resort to ditch plans to provide these vermin a platform. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/08/colorado-springs-succeeds-in-barring.html

The beauty of the Springs boycott is that no one was really trying specifically to take away the "speech rights" of the Nazis and white supremacists, merely their platform, their venue. The could have chosen another one but up to now have decided not to.   This may be all the alert and aware citizen can do now to halt the spread of these virulent memes - but in the COS case, it was enough.

Another Mathematician Responds to the NSA Mass Surveillance

Having already discussed at length the reaction of a former NSA mathematician, Keith Devlin of Stanford University - appearing in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society (Vol. 61, No. 6, p. 624)-  to the Edward Snowden leaks on NSA overreach, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/07/stanford-mathematician-calls-out-nsa-on.html

It is interesting to examine another, this one appearing in Notices of the American Mathematical Society (Vol. 61, No. 8, p. 902.) The author, William Binney, is a former NSA Technical Director, now retired.   After giving his considerable background, including co-founder of the Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (SARC), he notes that what made it possible to "smartly select data" was none other than "building relationships between entities".

In other words, the persistent protection of sound professional relationships was the cornerstone to smart collection and storage of data - ensuring there was no problem of maximum overload - and hence - adding more and more 'hay' to find the proverbial "needle in the haystack".

What is most telling, are Binney's takes on what's going on now with the indiscriminate NSA surveillance as revealed by whistle blower Ed Snowden. He makes specific reference to the formidable technological power now at the hands of the NSA as he writes (p. 903):

"Unfortunately, all this power to capture data, graph social networks, and index collected data to the relationships in the graph was directed initially inward, toward U.S. citizens. This automatically produced a profile of the activity of everyone. This profile was available on request from analysts. Also in the process, the NSA removed the privacy protections for U.S. citizens and decided to collect and store as much data as it could ingest. No one has privacy from the government anymore,

I, of course, objected, as in my mind these actions were at a minimum, a violation of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to our Constitution."

And, of course, he's absolutely correct as can be ascertained by anyone who reads the words of the referenced amendments. Prof. Binney clearly has since he explains where each violation occurs, e.g.

First Amendment:

This is violated because "the graphing of social networks (enhanced by other knowledge bases) would show the people you are associated with. The First Amendment says you have the right to peaceably assemble, and the Supreme Court has held (in NAACP vs. Alabama) that the government does not have the right to know with whom you are assembling.

Fourth Amendment:

"The collection of your email, chatter and phone calls (recorded or transcribed) is a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in you affairs."

One can validate this take simply by reading the statement of the 4th amendment itself:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

What we see then is that the NSA mass surveillance, mass warrants that Ed Snowden revealed, discloses a rejection not only of citizens’ fundamental right to privacy but any right to be secure in one’s person, papers, effects.

Fifth Amendment:

"Using content data to search for criminal activity can also be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which gives the right not to be a witness against yourself. An example of this is the 'parallel construction' techniques used by the FBI and the DEA's Special Operations Division, to find evidence to submit in court proceedings when they use data collected by the NSA."

Thus does Prof. Binney make a sound case of how the Constitution is being violated. He also has words for those who have the naïve impression all this NSA data grabbing is innocuous:

"Some have claimed the NSA collection is innocuous  because for those who are not terrorist suspects or associates, the NSA collects only metadata- such as phone numbers, the date, time and duration of calls. Evidence that this claim is untrue can be found, for example, in the testimony of two NSA transcribers who worked at Fort Gordon in Georgia: Adrienne Kinne and David Murfee Falk, They have testified that after the invasion of Iraq, they transcribed in full, calls made by U.S. citizens in the Green Zone- members of the military, NGOs, journalists etc.  Kinne and Murfee were disturbed at having to transcribe these intimate, personal conversations between family members. This transcribing was done without warrant and thereby violated both USSID -18 and FISA - and of course, the Constitution."


He doesn't mention that subsequently, a rat-faced bunch of congressional weasels ok'd the warrantless wiretapping, and thereby saved them the trouble of prosecuting the Bushies who initiated it. The same congress then made the unlawful, lawful in a re-interpreted FISA law - which most of us 4th amendment "zealots" take as bogus.

Sad, but if this doesn't get every citizen off his or her butt and screaming, I don't know what will.

Hypocritical Supremes: 'Do As We Say, Not As We DO!'

Following close on the heels of a rational Supreme Court decision, in disallowing the ability of cops to search cell phones without warrants, we now have another decision (9-0, incredibly)  that's a head scratcher. In fact, it's a lollapalooza, bunghole decision redolent with hypocrisy that screams: "Forget the First Amendment when the security of the elites is at risk, it only applies to the hoi polloi....the little people!"

Thus, the court ruled unanimously (in McCullen vs. Coakley)  that a Massachusetts law providing for measly 35' "buffer zones" around abortion clinics was an affront to the First Amendment and hence "illegal".  What are these nine morons drinking? Have they no conception of how violence has swirled around those MA clinics and intimidated women simply attempting to get health care? Oh no! According to this enclave of selective free speech nuts, there are "other laws" to deal with those violent situations and all we are saying is the women need to submit to "counseling" as they try to approach clinic,  and it is the "counselors" 1st amendment right to do so.

The exact wording was:

"The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth's asserted interests"

Excuse me?   How do they square this with the fact that the Supreme Court itself is on public property but it does in fact have a huge buffer zone?   Indeed, one can examine the graphic shown at the top to see what a mockery and double standard we have here: since  the Supreme Court's own buffer zone encompasses the ENTIRE plaza in from of the Supreme Court Building! (Meanwhile, the tiny red line underneath shows the MA abortion clinic buffer zone)

As Chris Hayes pointed out in his segment on this judicial perfidy last night:

"I mean you can't even go up the Supreme Court's door step, not even for so-called quiet persuasion or counseling. You can't tap, tap, tap on the Justices' car door windows like protestors do to women trying to access health clinics. You can't go up to a Justice on his or her way to the office and say something like 'May I have a moment to talk to you about your majority opinion in Citizens United?'

Hayes referenced that the Supremes' rebuttal was that the women going into abortion clinics were "protected by other laws" but added that last year alone:

- Nearly 90 percent of abortion providers had patients expressing concern for their safety

- More than 80 percent of abortion providers had to call law enforcement because of safety, access or criminal activity concerns

Hayes went on to point out that in the last three decades, abortion providers have seen 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 181 cases of arson and 399 invasions, 1495 acts of vandalism, 2482 instances of trespassing, 4 kidnappings, and 550 instances of stalking.  He went on to say:

"Imagine how big the Supreme Court's buffer zone would be if eight federal judges were murdered in the past forty years by anti-court terrorists. If federal court buildings had been bombed forty two times, set on fire 181 times. What kind of buffer zone would those nine justices want for themselves?"


Well, it's clear it would be at least a half mile around - even affecting D.C. traffic. Or at least the size of the egregious "first amendment zones" the Bushies erected during his reign so he didn't have to hear the thunderous roar of protestors! (Why was that little bastard immune from the free speech rights of citizens?)

The abortion clinic buffer zone ruling, in other words, makes clear there' s one rule for the elites (whose precious hides must be protected at all costs - even dissing free speech of citizens) and another for the common folk - who just have to take their chances with the  nutsos and fruitcakes.

Speaking of which, who is this "McCullen" anyway who pursued this case to the SC (With the assistance of the 'Alliance Defending Freedom' rabble rousers)?  She's a  77 year old Massachusetts harpy and religious obsessive who demands that she be permitted to "quietly engage women going for abortions, to talk them out of it". Make no mistake that what she's advocating is not "quietly talking" it is forcefully pushing a religious view on vulnerable women already in a psychologically  fragile state. In this sense, it is akin to psychological torture and molestation that the CIA would use in their "renditions". Indeed, in many cases, women attempting to enter clinics are yelled at with shouts of "Don't kill that baby!" with the idiots not even aware that a fetus isn't a baby, or even a person.

Let's make clear that the nine Supremes are also hoist on their own first amendment petard. For if they will not allow "quiet counseling" directed by citizens to themselves, why have they enabled it to be pushed on vulnerable women by insane nuts? It makes a mockery of their entire argument! (Of course, some will argue that the Supremes are "special" because in the legal venue one must take care to avoid all untoward "influence". Which is total bollocks since it reduces the Court to the state of pathetic programmable robots as opposed to independent, authentic thinkers. Besides which, we note many of the Supremes, e.g. Scalia, often barge into the public domain to attempt to influence thinking of citizens. What's good for the goose ought to good for the gander!)

The bottom line is we see again there is one set of Constitutional standards that applies to the political elites and another for ordinary citizens.

The problem with double standards is that they undermine the entire Constitutional edifice and the rule of law. Make no mistake that critically thinking citizens notice these inconsistencies, or as MA attorney general Martha Coakley put it: "The donning of a black robe allows them to say do what we say and not what we do."

Ms. Coakley, to her credit, emphasized to Chris Hayes that the state has the right first and foremost to protect public safety and also the women have the right to access health care- and that the existing 35' buffer struck a good balance between speech and safety. To see it now rejected is "disheartening" given how MA women will now be subjected to screeching zombies waving placards with aborted fetuses.  Coakley will also be monitoring the situation in the wake of the law and make any changes deemed necessary - especially if one or more women are injured or worse, because a "free speechifier" gets over zealous. As she put it:

"We will do that! We are prepared to go back to the legislature. We are prepared to do whatever we need to do to make sure that women in Massachusetts have access to care.."

Good for you! Let's not allow the hypocritical Court to have the last word when they don't follow their own "free speech" edicts!

See also:
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/26/do_what_we_tell_you_to_do_or_we_will_kill_you/

NO! Money Is Not "Speech" - The Five Conservo Supremes Are Off Their Rockers!

"It's not too much to announce that it's over. We - the 90-odd percent of ordinary Americans, have finally lost -- it all this time. And the rich and super-rich have won. What's over are the last vestiges of the dream of an egalitarian democracy. Though never achieved in perfection, past generations have at least tried hard to make it so.

But the final blow came today when the conservative dominated Supreme Court struck down campaign finance limits. Now the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adleman and their ilk, can buy the kind of government that most benefits them and theirs.

We have now officially become a checkbook democracy." - Steve Pizzo,  www.smirkingchimp.com

In the course of describing the egregious ruling of the majority conservative faction on the Supreme Court yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts declared (presumably with a straight face):

"If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades - despite the profound offense such spectacles cause - it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition".


In a landmark judgment in favour of the rights of political donors, the conservative-dominated bench basically ruled that unlimited amounts of money can be poured into election campaigns.

Which makes me wonder what kind of misbegotten law school Roberts attended, that he can confuse and conflate "political campaign speech" with an inert currency exchange medium like money. To be sure, I've no objection to political campaign speech. Let the politicos get up on their soap boxes and spell out their assorted agendas and programs to their hearts' content. Indeed, they can say whatever the hell they want, within limits.

But please don't go on now and also tell me that money is speech and is entitled - in terms of donations to political campaigns - to be regarded in the same First Amendment sense as "funeral protests" (like Fred Phelps and his band of idiots used to stage), or flag burning or neo-Nazi parades.

The reason is clear: The First Amendment was intended to protect the speech of humans, which bears ideological or innately political statements - often in the form of protests, artifacts or parades. Thus, neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, IL as they did back in the 70s was intended to focus attention on their dubious cause. In the same way, flag burning is intended to focus public attention on some manner of outrage for which giving ordinary voice might not have the same effect. Note here too, that the flag is a possession, an artifact....and as one Justice once pointed out - "So long as you are burning YOUR own flag and not someone else's you are exercising your form of speech as protest."

Yes, it's true that on its face the 5-4 ruling seems to be more limited than the outrageous Citizens United ruling several years ago. However, it still leaves loopholes a mile wide through which the money-laden, aka the wealthiest, will be able to drive gigantic trucks through to get the  "best democracy money can buy."  Which is really ...a corporatocracy.

Douglas Rushkoff, in his superb book, Life Inc. - How Corporations Conquered the World and How We Can Take It Back, has a special chapter on money (Chapter 6, 'To Whom Credit Is Due') and ought to be required reading for every citizen. As he points out: "Money is not a neutral medium - it favors some types of behavior while discouraging others."  He goes on to give a detailed discourse (which I will treat in a separate future blog post) on how the rise of "centralized currency" money and the infrastructure that conceived it, was actually responsible for the bubonic plague which killed more than one third of humanity.

At this point, let me simply summarize his thesis by noting that such centralized, interest -bearing currency contains all the instrumental evils in itself that one can comprehend. This instrumental evil is vastly in excess of that manifested in any Nazi parade, or occasional flag burning, because it affects the bulk of humanity (excepting the wealthiest) under its control. Hence, its infernal systematic spread can increase unemployment, hoarding and destitution engendering secondary evils (such as prostitution, drug addiction, burglary, murder and even spread of disease) that Nazi parades and flag burning cannot.

This is precisely why its perverse equivalence to "speech" (hawked by numerous right wing think tanks in the 80s) is as outrageous as it is incorrect.  Because money - certainly in our country (and surely many others) is tied inextricably to a centralized currency and banking system, then any occasions wherein that currency is infused  (i.e. elections) can be made as corrupted as the centralized system itself.   One can even argue that given the already widespread circulation of outside money in politics, to the point of bribery, it was inevitable the nation would descend to a military-corporate gangster state that only appeases the will of the few - while eschewing the will of the many (expressed in the vote).

Rushkoff's point is that this central currency system not only drives political corruption, but also massive inequality, because it is designed to always be even less than a zero sum game. He cites the example of a company that borrows $1 million from a bank, but then this metastasizes to $3m because of interest accrued over time. Where does the money come from to pay the outstanding $2m back - assuming it can be paid back at all? It comes from all those who have property claimed or foreclosed or confiscated because they were at the "losing end" of the banking loan and credit system.  At no time, as Rushkoff observes, can that losing end be closed, citizens protected, because otherwise it would mean the elimination of debt - which the centralized system can't tolerate.

In the case of pouring money into political campaigns or elections, then, the money amassed and channeled into these purviews to give specious "voice" to a segment of the populace (the richest)is generally taken from the indebted hides of ordinary citizens. If this money infusion is to be compounded or expanded, it means that debt must increase as the economic inequality sustained by it.

This is totally dissimilar to any "Nazi parade" or "flag burning" which speech can only have a limited effect on the body politic and because of this can't undermine it or destroy it the way money can to the political-electoral system. 

If one needs an analogy to forms of disreputable speech to work with - here it is: A motley assortment of drinks is available at a party to feed one's drinking "vice" - maybe gin, bourbon, rum, vodka and scotch whiskey. Partaking of any or all of them will get one's head spinning but that's okay as it's just a social occasion. In whatever case, the effects will wear off.  However, if one were to add cyanide to the mix, say in a fruit juice, the social tableaux and exchange upon which it's based would be terminated. All partaking would perish if the cyanide -laced drinks spread. In this sense, the thesis of instrumental evil advanced by Rushkoff and Lars Svendson (' A Philosophy of Evil') equates the infusion of money as "speech" as akin to the infusion of cyanide  -in drinks,  at a party or social gathering.  

The very example here, of cyanide-  a  known lethal substance -  is intended to force the perceptual disconnect to all the other drinks served. In like manner, money (as akin to it)  is intended to force the perceptual disconnect that it cannot be the same as other forms of distressing speech.

Thus, Roberts and his 4 conservos have effectively given permission to dump "cyanide" into the political -electoral system which could conceivably complete its destruction - already well underway.

In this sense, the four liberal Justices were quite correct when they objected, noting that the conservative five "misconstrued the nature of the competing constitutional interests and understanding the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions".

Perhaps, Roberts and his motley crew wouldn't have made this error if they had thought of money as cyanide, to the body politic.

Justice Stephen Brier went on to note that the ruling:

"creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars  to a political party or a single campaign"

Justice Brier went on to point out that along with the Citizens United decision, it "eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve."

Sen. Bernie Sanders has it exactly correct when he said yesterday, in response to the ruling:

“Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government,”

Sadly, it appears whatever "democratic legitimacy" we may once have had, has now gone the way of the Dodo. 


See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/stephen-pizzo/55153/okay-folks-its-game-and-match