Tag Archives: donald-trump

“Disinformation” is not the same as falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater

Posted on by
4

Here’s how the First Amendment debate over governmental prohibitions on free speech has been framed:

  • The Democrats want the government to prohibit people from spreading “disinformation” that they don’t like.
  • The Republicans correctly point out that the First Amendment, in general, prohibits such a prohibition.
  • The Democrats then respond that the First Amendment does not apply because disinformation is like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater – people’s safety is at risk.
  • Republicans then point out that the analogy between political speech and falsely “shouting FIRE in a crowded theater” is rooted in a Supreme Court case dating back to WWI. In that case, the Court upheld a restriction on speech in opposition to the wartime draft. The Court decided that political speech opposing the draft was like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, in that it could cause America to lose the war. It was a stretch, but that was the Court’s analogy.
  • But, say the Republicans, that Supreme Court case was later rejected during the Vietnam War in 1969 (a much less popular war than WWI) and was essentially overruled. Political speech today clearly is protected by the First Amendment – even if it’s highly unpopular or even untrue.

So far, so good. But many Republicans have gone on to imply that the Supreme Court’s overruling of the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” analogy means that the First Amendment gives people the right to falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

This was a mistake for two reasons. The first is strategic and the second is legal.

The strategic reason is that contending the First Amendment gives people the right to say things to cause an immediate, panicked mayhem violates common sense and tends to discredit the First Amendment. Casual thinkers start to casually think, “Gee, if the First Amendment gives people the right to cause dozens of trampling deaths in minutes, just to watch people get trampled, then maybe the First Amendment is not such a good thing.”

The legal reason it’s a mistake to imply that the Supreme Court ultimately decided falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater is protected by the First Amendment, is that the Supreme Court never did.  

Rather, what the Court held in that later case was that political speech is simply not the same as falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater. The latter is false and may produce immediate maiming and death, while the former is a political statement which might be false (or might not be) but is not likely to produce immediate maiming and death.

If the Supreme Court is ever confronted with a case where someone is prosecuted for causing immediate maiming and death by falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not decide that his grotesque mischief is protected by the First Amendment.

But, you say, isn’t the First Amendment absolute?

No, it is not. For example, there is no First Amendment right to tell material lies in the sale of a product – to engage in false advertising. The First Amendment does not give a business the right to falsely state that their snake oil has cured cancer in 29,385 people if it hasn’t, or falsely state that customers can return goods for a cash refund if they can’t.

There is no First Amendment right to state falsehoods on your tax return. You can’t tell the IRS that you earned X dollars when you really earned X + Y dollars, as Hunter Biden has learned to his dismay (along with thousands of other citizens over the years, notoriously including Al Capone).

There is no First Amendment right to lie under oath. That’s perjury, and it’s a crime – and it’s not protected by the First Amendment.

There is no First Amendment right to defame a person, as several media outlets learned when they falsely characterized a teenager as racist because it suited their narrative. 

There is no First Amendment right to make or distribute child pornography.

But most other speech is indeed protected by the First Amendment, particularly political speech. Saying that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, or that Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin is running the White House, or that the 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the CIA or by aliens, or that your uncle was eaten by cannibals, is all generally protected as political speech – whether it’s true or not.

Such political speech is not the same as shouting FIRE in a crowded theater to cause an immediate mob scene of trampled human bodies.

Whether there’s a political price to be paid for false speech is, of course, a separate issue. Sometimes there is, and oftentimes there’s not. Either way, that’s not a legal matter, but a political matter.

Our nation stands nearly alone in the protections of the First Amendment. In most of Europe, you can be sent to jail for “hate speech” that a judge finds offensive. And many people have been. That is not the law in America, yet.

The Republicans have by far the better of this First Amendment debate, but they’ve expressed their argument poorly by implying that you can indeed shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

The proper argument is: Granted, you can’t falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater, but political speech is nothing of the sort.

Glenn K. Beaton practiced law in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

Hey, this election is not about your precious feelings!

Posted on by
6

The choices in this election are evidently Donald Trump and Not-Donald Trump. Nobody is voting for Trump’s chimeric, charlatanic opponent, but many are voting against Trump.

Those Against-Trump voters fall into three camps.

Camp 1 comprises people who genuinely disagree with Trump on the issues. I think these voters are mostly wrong, but I grudgingly respect them. At least they’re analyzing the issues, even though they’re coming to the wrong conclusion.

So, OK . . .

  • If they think Trump is wrong to tighten up the southern border;
  • If they think Trump is wrong to extend the tax cuts (which disproportionately benefited middle- and low-income Americans);
  • If they think Trump is wrong to keep nukes out of the hands of the Ayatollahs;
  • If they think Trump is wrong to encourage oil and gas production at home at reasonable prices and under stringent environmental safeguards rather than in places like Russia and Venezuela where they produce it dirtily and then sell it to us expensively;
  • If they think Trump’s economy of 1.4% inflation and low unemployment was bad compared to much higher inflation and unemployment under his successor;
  • If they think Trump is wrong to oppose racial discrimination in hiring and in college admissions; and
  • If they think Trump is wrong in his desire to slim down the Federal government;

. . . then I think they’re mistaken. But if they believe those things, then they’re probably right to vote against Trump. I say “probably” because it’s hard to be certain that Trump’s opponent is in their camp, since she waffles daily and hides her positions (with the aid of a complicit, biased media).

Camp 2 of Against-Trump voters are those who sincerely believe he’s a “threat to democracy.” I have a bit less respect for those voters because I think they’re being melodramatic rather than analytic.

Some of them are at least sincere and are voting the way they think serves the country. Others, however, are just parroting the “threat to democracy” line to rationalize their true reasons for being against Trump, namely that they are in Camp 1 or 3.

As for the threat Trump poses to democracy, Camp 2 points to Trump’s action and inaction on Jan. 6, 2021. Indeed, it was not his finest hour.

But the notion that we almost lost the Republic that day – to a hooligan in a buffalo-horn hat and his unarmed sidekicks who made a ruckus and swiped some souvenirs from the Capitol Building – is overblown, at best. Note that the Supreme Court ultimately decided that the gross offenders were grossly overcharged by the Democrat prosecutors, and the Court threw out the most serious charges.

This Camp 2 also points to Trump’s personality. Bellicose is perhaps a word to describe it. In a prior life, the guy had fun with a reality TV show where his punch line was “You’re fired!” In a more serious vein, Trump has bragged that he fired people right and left in his first administration.

Sometimes people do need to be fired. But good bosses don’t relish firing people. Moreover, a boss who frequently fires people should be looking a bit at his own failings in hiring and supervising such people to begin with.

But none of that makes Trump a “threat to democracy.” If you want to talk seriously about a threat to democracy, then talk about an administration that:

  • Refuses to physically protect to its political opponents;
  • Routinely characterizes its opponents as “threats” to the nation;
  • Calls for a “bullseye” to be put on its opponents;
  • Pressures media outlets to censor news and opinions they don’t like;
  • Hides the encroaching senility of the Democrat President, acknowledges it only when they get caught, and then replaces him behind the scenes with a woman who helped hide his senility to begin with and has never won a Democrat delegate in her life – while they still keep the senile President in the office of “Leader of the Free World” even as they acknowledge that he’s too senile to run for that office;
  • Seeks to put skin color ahead of merit in hiring and college admissions;
  • Frequently compares their opponents to Nazis:
  • Repeatedly overreaches in legal matters to the point that their court record on challenges is abysmal;
  • Refuses to follow Supreme Court rulings, and slams the Court as “illegitimate.”

In other words, talk about the Democrats.

That brings us to Camp 3. These are the voters I respect least, even though they’re the most amiable on the surface. These are the voters who mostly agree with Trump on the issues, but they simply don’t like his personality.

Trump is certainly not a slickster. He didn’t even graduate at the bottom of his law school class like the current Delaware beach bum and sometimes Oval Office occupant. In fact, he never went to law school at all. I doubt he even knows how to say “Pass the sweet-and-sour shrimp.”

But despite, or perhaps because of, all those things, I have a hunch that I might like the guy in person.

On the other hand, if I wouldn’t, so what? We’re not electing Homecoming Queen. We’re electing someone to preserve and enhance the interests of America and the world.

The left knows that. That’s why they hate Trump. It’s because he protects the interests of the country and culture they hate: America and Western Civilization. (If they lived in Africa or Southeast Asia, they’d hate them too, but that’s another column.)

If you’ve read this far, you’re not a leftist. But maybe it makes you feel good to join the left in voting against a person you find tacky and bellicose – someone you deem beneath you in social graces, polish, and good hair – even though he protects American and Western interests. Well, fine.

But actually, not fine at all. The price for your personal feel-goodery is to put our people, our nation, our civilization, and our world, at risk. This election is about something bigger than your feelings.

As for those who will vote neither for nor against Trump, my question is this: Do you really think Trump and his opponent are exactly equally bad at protecting our country and culture? Are you seriously contending that you graded them out on the issues and each of them came to a grade of, say, 73.41?

C’mon, man. You know which came out higher. Your refusal to vote for him is an exercise in virtue-signaling to yourself and others.

But this isn’t about you and your virtue and your signals. Get over yourself, and do the smart thing. The world is at stake.

Haitians eat cats and mud – the only question is where

Posted on by
4

Two countries share the Caribbean island that is called Hispaniola. The west side is Haiti. The east side is Dominican Republic. The latter shares practically nothing with the former except that island, but it’s racist to point that out.

“Failed state” is an understatement to describe Haiti. It’s one of the poorest, most dangerous places on earth. You can scarcely call it a nation. Gangs run the government. It’s been eight years since the last election in Haiti. But no matter; the elections are all rigged anyway.

The State Department has honored Haiti with a “Level 4 Do Not Travel” advisory. That’s the worst advisory they give. It puts Haiti in the company of Iran and North Korea. Quotes from the advisory are fun reading, such as:

*Carjackers attack private vehicles stuck in traffic. They often target lone drivers, especially women.

 *Crimes involving firearms are common in Haiti. They include robbery, carjackings, sexual assault, and kidnappings for ransom. Kidnapping is widespread.

*Shortages of gasoline, electricity, medicine, and medical supplies are common throughout the country.

*U.S. government personnel are subjected to a nightly curfew and are prohibited from walking in Port-au-Prince. U.S. government personnel in Haiti are also prohibited from:

  • Using any kind of public transportation or taxis. 
  • Visiting banks and using ATMs. 
  • Driving at night. 
  • Traveling anywhere after dark. 
  • Traveling without prior approval and special security measures in place.Subscribed

Haiti makes Chicago by comparison look like . . . well, forget it. Nothing could make Chicago look any better, not even hell itself.

Haiti was the site of an earthquake about 15 years ago. It seems impossible, but the earthquake made things even worse. And so for a time thereafter, upper-class, liberal, white, American do-gooders made a fetish of going there to do good, or at least feel good. I can remember them to this day: “Dahhling, you really MUST go to Haiti! Those two weeks were literally spiritual for me (not in a literal sense, mind you). It made me an even better person!“

The US sends Haiti billions of dollars in aid. Despite all that free money, the place remains the crotch of humanity.

Fox Butterfield, is that you?

A staple of the Haitian diet is mud cakes. That’s not a charming name for a foreign food, such as “bangers and mash.” And it’s not a magical name for food that might be tasty apart from what it is, such as “haggis” or “Rocky Mountain oysters.” Mud cakes are cakes of mud – dried clay to be specific. The nutrient value is accursed, but they do heal your hunger, or at least fill you up.

You see, roughly half of the Haitian population goes hungry. This country in the tropics with good soil is unable to conjure up enough food for its own people.

Apart from mud cakes, they also eat pets. When the alternative is mud cakes, who wouldn’t?

Hunger is not the only reason they eat pets. Another reason is that their religion calls for it. About half the population of Haiti practice various forms of Voodoo, an odd theatrical religion drawing from the worst of African paganism with a touch of Roman Catholicism. Zombies are at home in Voodoo. So is spell-casting. So are skeletons.

So is animal sacrifice – it’s one of the standard rituals of Voodoo. When it comes to the species of animal, they’re flexible. It’s whatever can’t outrun them. Goats, deer, racoons, sheep, lizards, cats, dogs, etc.

After the animal is sacrificed, its remains are consumed by the entranced attendees of the ritual. It’s either that or mud cakes. If they aren’t eating cats in Haiti as you read this, it’s only because they already ate them all.

A little town in Ohio named Springfield has a lot of recent Haitian immigrants. Given that there are about 11 million Haitians still in Haiti, the good people of Springfield can expect more. Many of these immigrants are from Port au Prince, shown above, a place that is to princes what Rocky Mountain oysters are to oysters.

A few reports surfaced recently that the Haitian immigrants to Springfield are satisfying their hunger and practicing their religion in the manner of their culture: They are catching, killing and eating people’s pets.

The reaction of the liberal media was predictable. “Noooo waaaay!” they exclaimed in unison.

The notion that Haitians in Springfield were doing what Haitians do in Haiti was objectionable to the liberal media for at least three reasons. One, it was Donald Trump who mentioned it.

Two, the allegation suggested that the culture of some immigrants might be different than the culture of typical Americans. That’s taboo, unless the differences make the immigrants better, not worse.

Three, Haitians happen to be Black, or at least black. (When they’re foreigners, are they Black or just black? I’ll consult the AP Stylebook and get back to you.) The liberal media thus simultaneously judged Haitian religious animal sacrifice to be a bad thing, and contended that Haitians don’t engage in it, because, after all, they’re b(B)lack so they wouldn’t do such a bad thing. Not that it’s bad, at least when it’s done by b(B)lacks.

To contend otherwise makes a person racist. The definition of racism today is being critical of a person with dark skin. It doesn’t matter whether the criticism has anything to do with the person’s dark skin.

For that matter, it doesn’t even have to be a criticism. Simply making a factual observation about people that is deemed to reflect badly on them is deemed racist if they have dark skin.

Observing that the b(B)lack murder rate in America is seven-times the white murder rate, is racist. Observing that the b(B)lack illegitimacy rate in America is 72% is racist. And observing that Haitians in Haiti sacrifice and eat cats and dogs is racist.

The media therefore rejected these reports that Haitians love dogs and cats (“Taste like chicken!”). They said there was “no evidence” that the reports were true.

But in a court of law, reports themselves are evidence. Standing alone, they might not be definitive proof, but they’re certainly evidence.

Then the media escalated to hyperbole in proclaiming that the spooky reports were not only unevidenced, but “false.” Devilry, those reports are.

To conclude that the reports are “false” without any evidence that they’re false – but merely a lack of definitive evidence that they’re true – does violence to the legal principles of evidence. It’s witchcraft. It’s like saying the allegation that OJ Simpson committed murder is “false” because he was acquitted. And because he was acquitted, there’s “no evidence” that he was guilty.

But I’ll leave all that for another column. Today’s column points are (1) Haitians in Haiti commonly eat cats and dogs for bad reasons of religion and good reasons of hunger, (2) the Haitian immigrants in Springfield probably didn’t leave their religion back in Haiti, (3) the Haitians probably didn’t leave their hunger back in Haiti either, (4) the cats and dogs of Springfield are readily available, and (5) cats and dogs are tastier and more nutritious than mud cakes, or so I’m told.

You can connect the dots, but that would be racist.

Are the Democrats trying to assassinate President Trump, or are they just rooting for it?

Posted on by
7

Shortly after Donald Trump was inaugurated after the 2016 election, a so-called comedienne posted a picture of herself holding Trump’s severed, bloodied head. That apparently passes for comedy among Democrats.

In a presentation of Julius Caesar in the venerable Shakespeare in the Park production in New York City a few months later, a likeness of Trump was cast in the role of Caesar. I don’t need to remind you what happens to Caesar in the end.

The violent rhetoric from Democrats just keeps on coming, through Trump’s first term, into this year’s re-election campaign, and right up to weeks before the election. And now, it’s predictably escalating from violent rhetoric and into violent acts.

A month ago, a would-be assassin missed Trump’s cranium by a quarter-inch with a bullet from an AR-15, only because Trump luckily turned at the last possible second. It came out that the Trump campaign had requested beefed-up security prior to the incident, and the White House had denied his request.

The Secret Service at the time was headed by a DEI hire, and the agents at the event were test-failing amateurs. They allowed the shooter within 130 yards of Trump on an unsecured rooftop. Even after they saw him there, with a gun, they failed to take him out and failed to alert Trump or his staff until he’d fired eight shots, killing one man, seriously wounding another, and grazing Trump’s ear.  

In an apparent admission of near-lethal negligence by the Service, five agents were later suspended.

Their replacements seem not much better. In yesterday’s attempt, a Democrat donor got within easy range of Trump on a golf course with a rifle equipped with a high-powered scope. The shooter was wearing a Go-Pro, apparently to post his assassination on YouTube where Democrats everywhere could cheer it. He was thwarted only because he was foolish enough to poke his rifle out of the bushes, where an agent happened to see it.

The shooter had been on the golf course for at least 12 hours. One must wonder, how did he know Trump’s golfing schedule at least 12 hours in advance?

Even now, after two assassination attempts that missed due only to incredible luck or Providence, President Trump is not afforded the level of protection that President Biden or even Vice President Harris receives.

Most recently, President Doofus again falsely accused Trump of saying that neo-Nazis are “fine people” even though that accusation has been thoroughly debunked even by leftist fact-checkers.

Kamala Harris repeated the lie in her debate with Trump – and was not corrected by the moderators even though the moderators purported to correct at least seven Trump statements (some of which were not factual claims, but mere opinions).

You might think the mainstream media would condemn these assassination attempts in the strongest words possible. But if you do think that, then you haven’t been paying attention to the mainstream media for the last ten years.

The mainstream media is implying – no, they’re outright stating – that Trump has all this coming because he’s a Republican who says nasty things. The Washington Post has already dismissed the assassination attempt and has framed it instead as Trump unfairly capitalizing on the incident politically.

The media take their cue from Biden and Harris. They routinely equate Trump with Adolf Hitler, the mass murderer of millions.

The Democrats let their rank and file connect the dots: Everyone has been taught, correctly, that killing Hitler would have been a heroic act that would have saved millions. So, the Democrats don’t exactly say “kill Trump” but they do suggest you’d be a hero if you did.

The backdoor insurrection conviction will not stand

Posted on by
12

The Colorado Supreme Court yesterday decided that Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection or rebellion” on or about Jan. 6, 2021. Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, he is therefore ineligible for the presidency and would be removed from the Colorado ballot.

A few points to consider:

The Court on its own volition stayed its order until Jan. 4 to give Trump an opportunity to appeal the case to the real Supreme Court, the United States one. If he does so, and he will, and the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, and they will, then the order is further stayed until the Supreme Court issues its decision this spring or summer.

The Colorado Supreme Court is comprised of seven justices. All seven were appointed by Democrat governors. The U.S. Supreme Court has a materially different composition. Six of the nine justices are Republican appointees.

Continue reading →