Freedom of Speech and of the Press

This article raises a very good question:  “Does the First Amendment protect global warming deniers?”
The answer is, unequivocally and resoundingly “YES.”
No federal, state, county, or local entity, nor any law enforcement or public business may restrict people’s expression concerning the pros freedom of speechand/or cons of various viewpoints on global warming, climate change, denying, etc. We live in the United States of America, which holds both the freedom of speech and the press in the highest regard. This is NOT Nazi Germany, which repressed the vast majority of free speech and severely punished violators.
 
Our First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
First, once they are properly ratified, all amendments are fully a part of the Constitution: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses rightsshall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.” (Article V).
 
Second, although 1A specifically limits Congress from passing any such law, the Supreme Court has repeatedly expanded that through the “the supreme Law of the Land” clause (Article VI) to mean the United States Constitution supersedes all federal, state, county, and local (municipality) law. Thus, no action by any executive, legislative, judicial branch, or by law enforcement or member of the public can legal violate any provision of the Constitution, including “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
 
Third, countless case law refers to “freedom of speech” as applying to oral utterances, regardless of source, whereas “the press” refers to the written Franklin_the_printer-by-Charles-B-Mills - Young Benjamin at his brother's Printing Pressword, regardless of form (print, offset type, electronic, billboard, etc.). Thus, my blog, as was Benjamin Franklin’s backyard printing press, is every bit as much “the press” as is the New York times. Although Nancy Pelosi would like you to believe otherwise, well, what can I say? She’s the last person I would ever consult on matters Constitutional.
 
Fourth, countless case law willfully ignores the content of free speech when determining whether or not it’s “allowable” under Constitutional law. Thus, t-shirts supporting the murderous revolutionary Che Guevara, are every bit as protected when worn by a teenager cruising the mall as is a t-shirt sporting a happy face.
 
Fifth, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously upheld very strict scrutiny for the exceedingly few restrictions on freedom of speech. Specifically, the only exceptions involve the following:
 
1. Content: Cannot be based upon content, i.e. any restrictions must remain content-neutral, even if the content is highly objectionable. This is the reason the Westboro Baptists can continue to protest military funerals despite the fact that 99% of society finds their behavior utterly reprehensible. Thus, no municipality can allow public protests supporting one side of an issue while denying those who are protesting the opposite side of the issue.
 
2. Time, place, and manner. Municipalities can place limited restrictions on time, place, and manner. For example, driving at 3 am (time) through neighborhoods (place) while blaring one’s point of view over loudspeakers We Will Not Be Silences(manner) violate all three. Such restrictions, however, must remain content-neutral. Thus, you cannot ban one group of protesters under any particular combination of time/place/manner while allowing another. The courts have also observed “similitude,” such that one time/place/manner is considered for all practical purposes as being substantially equivalent to another even details differ. Thus, a municipality cannot ban protests in one neighborhood while allowing them in another.
 
3. Prior restraint: “If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must be able to show that punishment after the fact is not a sufficient remedy, and show that allowing the speech would “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people” (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.
 
Bottom Line: Any and all claims related to “global warming” and “climate change” must stand on their own merits. The freedom to question the validity of ANY public opinion or policy directly relates to the ability of the people of our nation helping to keep our nation free by limiting the power and authority of all entities, most notably various institutions, including local, county, state, and federal governments, from infringing on our freedom of speech and of the press.
freedom of speech - Charles Bradlaugh

Is This “The Press” in Our First Amendment?

What is “the press?”  Is it limited to large news agencies?  Does the press include small town news papers?  How about a college student who hammered out a weekly one-page paper highlighting some of the goings on in the dormitory?
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that clamping down on ANY kind of speech or the press, including, if not especially that which others find distasteful or objectionable, constitutes a direct and heinous violation of our First Amendment rights.
 
the pressLet’s review: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
 
The “freedom of speech” part applies to everyone, regardless of the platform or message. The “press” part applies to the press, but what, really, is “the press?”
 
At 12, Benjamin Franklin became an apprentice to his brother James, a printer, who taught Ben the printing trade. When Ben the presswas 15, James founded The New-England Courant, which was the first truly independent newspaper in the colonies. Was that “the press?” Absolutely.
 
Fifteen years ago, my first professional article was published in a The Press Roomwell-known journal of the IT industry. Was that “the press?” Absolutely.
 
This very minute, I am writing an article expressing my opinion about our First Amendment’s protection of our rights to freely express our opinions about anything.
So…  Is this “the press?”

Absolutely!

Even if it weren’t, Congress is still prohibited against making any law that abridges the freedom of speech.  Rest assured, however, this blog is most certainly “the press” as mentioned in the Constitution.

The United Nation’s Anti-Blasphemy Resolution is an ABOMINATION

I am writing with respect to the recent UN “Anti-Blasphemy Resolution.”  They want to make that resolution binding on the part of all member nations, including the United States of America.  Put simply:

“The U.N.’s top human rights body has approved a proposal by Muslim nations urging the passage of laws protecting religion from criticism. Members of the Human Rights Council voted 23 in favor of a resolution Thursday to combat “defamation of religion.” Eleven nations, mostly from the West, opposed the resolution and 13 countries abstained. The resolution was proposed by Pakistan.” – Source

Lou Doubbs recently ran a piece on CNN Live entitled, “Free Speech FIGHT.” The 10:48 piece detailed the UN’s proposal, as well as the response to the following poll question: “Do you believe the United Nations’ restriction of freedom of speech in the United States should be tolerated?” 98% of the respondents answered “No.” Only 2% of all Americans answered “Yes.”  Interestingly enough, 2% of Americans are Muslim.

By a margin of fifty to one, the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans do NOT want the United Nations to have ANY say over our freedom of speech.  I concur with that wholeheartedly, as free speech protects all freedoms, including those of Muslims.

Furthermore, regardless of whatever federal, state, or local law may say, our Constitution remains “the supreme Law of the Land.” It details clear and certain terms the precise process by which any treaty can be made and what authority it may have in our country. I have detailed that process in clear, straightforward terms with respect to the UN Arms Trade Treaty, here.

Put simply, if a treaty violates the Constitution, it is not a legal treaty. As per several Supreme Court rulings, it is null and void, having zero value.  It is not to be followed, much less enforced, and is the responsibility of everyone to ensure that it is repealed.

The same process and restrictions would apply to the adoption of any UN resolution. It may not violate our Constitution in any form or fashion whatsoever, period.

With respect to religion in general, I am a Bible-believing Christian. I have no problems with the vast majority of other religions, including Judaism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Wiccan, and Voodoo. Unlike Islam, none of these systems of belief are out to dominate the world while murdering those who don’t believe.

Islam claims to be the last and final revelation from God, that no one needs any further evidence beyond the Qu’ran. If someone wants to claim that, fine. People can believe whatever they want to believe, provided it causes no harm to others.  Unfortunately, Islam not only doesn’t care about the harm it does to others, it strongly encourages it in many verses in the Qu’ran and the Hadith.

Islam takes this to the utter extreme, forbidding everyone, regardless of their faith, to express any doubts about it, while maintaining that any such challenge is punishable by death. If they can’t successfully demand absolute adherence right now, they get it by clawing and screaming for at least some movement towards their totalitarianism.  Inch by inch, they’re taking over the world.  There have been 71 attacks by Islam against the United States on our own soil since 1972, and the frequency per year is increasing.

Islamic suppression of our freedom of speech is totalitarianism defined. It is a rape and butchery of our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as those rights specifically mentioned in our First Amendment, and other rights not specifically mentioned but covered by our Ninth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Along with 49 out of 50 other Americans, I hereby reserve my rights, including my right to speak out in protest against this most heinous of belief systems our planet has ever seen.

In the Spring of 2001, I began paying closer attention to the increased volume and nature of pro-Islamic chatter.  What I read opened my eyes to the true nature of Islam. At the time, such horrors were not commonly known in the Western world. Following 9/11, however, the true face of Islam has been uncovered by a great many sources, even as Islam seeks to replace the veil of deceit through UN mandate.

Based on that chatter, the actions taken by Muslims over the last 25 years, and the very writings of the Qu’ran and the Hadith, I can confirm that Islam is not a religion.

Although it’s cloaked in the guise of a religion, it is a totalitarian movement towards absolute power and control over other people, fostered predominantly by the Imams and those in militaristic power, but unwittingly aided by those who earnestly believe a subset of Islamic belief designed to pacify, control, and recruit them to Islam’s most sinister purpose.

When Islam takes hold among the masses, it becomes a societally-contagious mental illness responsible for the murder of hundreds of millions of human beings — more so than any other single source of murder on the planet.  Most people, especially the liberal mainstream media, forget that long before the Christian Crusades took the first step in 1094, the Muslim Crusades has waged 461 years of war between Muhammad’s conquering of Mecca in 630 A.D. to Almoravids actions between 1050 and 1091 A.D.  A total of 43 distinct campaigns and thousands of individual battles during which they slaughtered millions of non-believers, pretty much everyone who refused to convert to Islam.

The saddest part about Islam is that they are doing precisely the same thing today.

When you read through the Qu’ran, you come to realize there is no middle ground. Anyone adhering to the Qu’ran is bound to follow through on Islam’s plan for total domination. The idea that the problems are only created by a tiny number of “radicals” is a myth, as is the idea of “moderate Muslims.” More than 38% of all Muslims polled in all countries world-wide strongly support the actions taken by so-called radicals, including the murder and beheadings of innocent women and children whose only “crime” is that they refused to convert to Islam.

That is not a “tiny minority.”

I see absolutely zero value in our country giving in even a nanometer to this abominable UN resolution. Instead, I see great, even massive harm in store for the future of our country, as well as all freedom-loving people around the globe. Many countries have already begun steeling themselves against the rising tide of Islam, and for good reason. They see it for the massive abomination of death, destruction, and totalitarianism that it really is, as clearly evidenced in the words of the Qu’ran and Hadith itself.

I strongly encourage you to resist any and all attempts by anyone towards a “middle road” solution. There simply is no middle ground with the totalitarianism and massive human rights abuses of Islam. Even a 10% solution would erode our precious freedoms for which so many have fought and for which far too many have died.

When it comes to Islam, my input is no way.  Not now, not ever.

Islam is THAT heinous a disease, and I, a Constitutionally-sworn patriot, will defend the United States of America against such heinous assaults on our freedoms to the death, if necessary.

Exercising Our Constitutional Rights is Neither an Offense Nor Cause for Alarm

For many of us, our Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms is more than a right. It’s our duty. When we swore to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” we undertook an oath to perform a duty.

There are many ways to go about protecting our Constitutional rights within the law, but the most effective way to protect our rights while informing the minds of the ignorant, a large part of the “domestic enemy,” is to simply exercise them throughout the normal course of our day.

When I carry my firearm, I don’t go out of my way to be noticed. In fact, I wear conservative clothing and behave normally, the same as I always behave.

I take the same approach towards our other rights, including freedom of speech.

I exercise my rights because of what happens when we don’t exercise them.  People forget what they look like.  People forget that they even have rights.  Societies become “too polite,” which is a nice way of saying “politically correct.”  Norms shift from freedom, the objective Constitutional standard of the free exercise of one’s rights, to the subjective politically correct standard based on avoiding “making a fuss,” “rocking the boat,” or “offending someone.”

Offense is not a legitimate reason to forfeit one’s rights.  Neither is alarm.  The Supreme Court has already decided this on several fronts, including racial equality, freedom of speech, and the right to keep and bear arms.  While we may attempt to minimize offense or alarm in the exercise of our rights, it is impossible to eradicate either, and attempting to do so undermines the rights which it is our duty to protect!  Let’s face it – people are offended by all kinds of things:  The color of my skin, the length of my hair, the fact I served in the military.  Heck, some folks are problem alarmed by the length of my hair, or the fact that I drive a truck!

Are those reasons to forfeit my right to keep and bear arms?  They are not.

What about alarm?  “OMG!  He’s got a gun!”  Thankfully, that’s not a statement I’ve heard any time in the 22 years I’ve been carrying a firearm, either on or off duty, including the last 2-1/2 years during which I’ve predominantly open carried.  In fact, I’ve been thanked more than a dozen times, and have had at least that many conversations during which I’ve been asked about the local laws governing our Second Amendment rights.

I’ll close with a final thought:  Holding true to what’s right will always offend some people, and it will always alarm others.

Please join the discussion on this article, here!