The Federalist Papers are a series of articles published in newspapers, and essays, authored by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton (pre-Broadway musical days for you robed readers), debating the parameters of the soon to be US Constitution.
On Tuesday in Miami, Jonathan Guerra Blanco, was sentenced to 16 years In Federal Court in a plea deal before Judge Scola for producing and promoting ISIS propaganda and promotional materials.
There is something that bothers us about that.
There is no defense of ISIS. THIS IS NO DEFENSE OF ISIS (so spare us your emails and diatribes against us in the comments). But it seems to us that the better method is to not prosecute odious speech and propaganda because only the antiseptic light of day will kill the vile lies promoted by ISIS and supporters of POTUS 45.
We are a country founded by an asymmetric military made up of peasants and farmers fighting the strongest army on earth at that time (England).
One could say our founders were a rag-tag band of terrorists fighting a colonial power.
Israel, in the days before its founding, had bands of asymmetric fighters attacking the colonial English in Palestine. One of the leaders of what was clearly a terrorist organization- Irgun - was Menachem Begin, who later became Prime Minister and signed a peace treaty with Egypt. Begin and the Irgun studied other underground military organizations like the Irish underground's fight against the British. In order to forestall cries of antisemitism, we think Begin, Israel, the Irgun, and the Hagenah did exactly what they had the right to do, and needed to do, to bring Israel into existence.
Our point is again not to defend ISIS. Their ideas and actions are reprehensible. But to question the methods of criminalizing the dissemination of ISIS propaganda.
Because as we like to say, if they can stop a farmer from selling the wheat he grows (Wickard v. Fillburn), if they can stop people disseminating speech because they do not like the content -certain government bureaucrats find it "dangerous"- then what can't they do?
The Chinese control their citizens' access to the internet. The Chinese government monitors chat rooms and internet-related discussion of ideas. Promote the wrong idea- freedom for Hong Kong for example- and you are prosecuted and sentenced to prison (there are nary any Mr. Markus's or Rumpoles in China).
What makes what the US government did to Blanco any different than what China does to people who protest Hong Kong OTHER than the specific content of the ideas?
And if you go down that road, then you agree there should be government content moderators who decide what speech is and is not a crime. Good luck with that.
Ok, now go call Rumpole a "jew hating, ISIS loving ass&ole".
10 comments:
I know nothing about this case so I’m shooting from the hip however, I respectfully disagree with you. ISIS is a terrorist organization focusing on murder, destruction and the undoing of our way of life. There’s plenty to prosecute and evidently the defendant and counsel agreed. On a personal level this defendant deserves to be beheaded or burned alive ….like what those bloodthirsty animals would do onto us. This is not a subject matter that deserves an esoteric consideration, I couldn’t think of a more deserving defendant
Your political party's central plank at this point is censorship. The White House openly calls for banning political opponents from even speaking, from trump to Rogan and on and on. Your party's favorite word is "misinformation."
And sitting silent for so long, while even the aclu joins the censorship game, you suddenly stumble upon an example of all this going too far, and it is an **ISIS case**?
LMFAO
Ha, freedom of speech is so last century. We need to follow the lead of Florida's flagship university and squash it.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21183760-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-ruling-01212022
We are reaching a crisis point in this country. The left does not believe in freedom of speech. Look at the Hunter Biden expose, the hundreds of examples of censorsh on college campuses, the suppression of any opposing scientific evidence that contradicts the government's line on Covid, and suppressing any literature or people who do not follow the climate change narrative. It is scary when people in power react to dissenting opinions not by reason and debate but by suppression of speech. Every reader of this blog should spend the weekend reading Orwell's 1984. The similarities are frightening.
1:12 doesn't seem to understand the difference between private action and government action.
Twitter denying service based on speech is very different than criminal prosecution based on speech.
1:12 also doesn't understand the difference between fact and opinion. Saying "thousands of under aged voters fraudulently voted in Georgia and Georgia's election supervisor knows it and is doing nothing about it" is a false statement of fact and is slanderous. Saying "American devils are corrupting the teachings of Mohammad and should be pushed out of the middle east" is a statement of religious and political opinion.
False speech (which is to say, false statements of fact) has never been protected speech under the constitution. Religious and political opinion are protected.
The question for the defendant in Rumpole's post is, was he expressing his religious and political opinion alone (however repugnant it may be)? Or, did his conduct amount to material aid to those conducting unlawful violence. It's the difference between flying a confederate flag (protected repugnant speech) and giving/raising money to buy rope for a lynching (a crime).
Islamic State in Syria is an anti imperialistic movement with a passionate and strict moral code. I'm not surprised you hedonistic globalists engage in such misinformation.
238
Kindly reread my post. I didnt suggest that trump would be successful in suing the government for his twitter ban as a violation of the 1st amendment. I made a broader point. Liberals like rump, and likely you, love censorship. You love it when the White House press secretary says in a press briefing that spotify should "do more" to suppress what she views as "misinformation" from joe rogan. She is using her government job and the prestige of the White House to attempt to get a 3rd party to do what she cant do directly...stifle the speech of her political opponents. Same goes for dems in congress when they haul Facebook to testify, and threaten regulation if it doesnt also "do more" to suppress what it views as "misinformation." And the "misinformation" in question is always speech from Republicans. One might call this coercion, and coercing a 3rd party to censor ones political opponents does bring the 1st amendment into play.
So when rump professed to suddenly care about free speech, it is profoundly hippocratical.
Libs love censorship. Period. Its okay to admit it. You wanted trump shut up, you prob want rogan shut up.
Am I wrong??????? Do you condemn the White House for openly calling for censorship?????? Or you just care about free speech principles to keep this ISIS guy out of jail???
558 you'll never change their minds. Leftist worldwide always suppress speech in whatever way they can. 2:38 is no different.
@558
Again, you're conflating false statements of fact and unpopular opinion. I have no problem with false statements of fact being shut down and neither does the law.
I have no idea what Joe Rogan says or has said - I've never listened to his show. But, if he said, for example, that "getting a COVID vaccine will also implant a tracking chip in your arm," that is a false statement of fact that is not protected by the law and I would have no problem with the Press Secretary calling for Rogan to shut up. If on the other hand, all he said something like "the COVID vaccine scares me. If I were 20 and healthy, I wouldn't get it," Rogan has the absolute right to say that (and so does Niel Young have the right to refuse to be associated with it!).
The next question is, what did the Press Secretary actually say about Rogan? Did she say that his comments are irresponsible? If so, no problem. If she said, however, that his comments are irresponsible AND that Spotify should drop him, then yes, that could cross the line (again, depending on what Rogan said).
I also didn't say that the ISIS guy should get out of jail. I said it depends on whether he was providing material support for ISIS otherwise unlawful conduct.
Your comments lack nuance and suggest someone who is emotionally charged and unwilling to meaningfully examine the issues. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We're exchanging short, anonymous, comments on a blog. This isn't exactly the highest form of debate.
As for whether I am "a liberal" - I am a liberal in the sense that I love the Constitution, likely the most liberal document of its time or any time before it, and still one of the most liberal governing documents to see the light of day. That said, I was a registered republican for almost 20 years and became an independent when my party closed ranks behind Donald Trump - a man who clearly does not love the Constitution or the ideas on which this country was founded. I belong to the party of George HW Bush, Mitt Romney, Colin Powell, John McCain, and locally, Carlos Curbelo - whatever that party is called today.
Curb your emotions. They betray u. Crush ISIS they have no place in America nor does their speech.
Post a Comment