Abusing the Process

 Once again, the Demorats are abusing the power of impeachment for naked partisan purpose only this time the spectacle is worse since the object of their outrage and wrath no longer holds office.

I have already discussed the nature of impeachment [here] and see no point in repeating myself, pleasing as that may be.  I would, however, like to expatiate briefly on the scope of impeachment.

As is well known by now, the Constitution gives the power of impeachment to the Commons and reserves trial of charge to the House of Lords.  With respect to the latter, the Constitution provides,

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

Now sage pundits writing in august papers have told us that "America was the birthplace of modern democracy."  Even more sage "legal experts" testified before Congress last year that America "invented" the principle that no man, including the President, is above the law.  When the laughter in Great Britain dies down, we might observe that such pronouncements are completely and totally wrong.  So wrong as to be classed as downright ignorant.

I will forgo discussing medieval law or the revival of Roman jurisprudence during the Renaissance.  Suffice to say that in in recent modern times, the principle that the King was subject to the Law was pronounced by Lord Coke before James I to his face. The king "grew mightily wroth" and moved to strike Coke who "fell on all foures" before scurrying away to safety.  Five years later Coke made the same announcement, this time with the backing of Parliament and the stage was set for the English Civil War.  

The concluding chapter of that century long struggle was the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which deposed James II and established Parliamentary supremacy.  In what, precisely, that supremacy consisted called for a little tempering given the fact that sovereignty was still thought to be embodied in the King.  The characteristically English way of expressing the matter was to say that the Sovereign could only act with the consent of Parliament.   This Fusion of Powers is expressed in the phrase "The King (or Queen) in Parliament" which signifies the totality of sovereignty shared and participated in jointly by the monarch and both houses of Parliament in the understanding that Parliament is the absolute and supreme legislative power but that no act can become law without the assent of the Monarch who in turn can only act with the consent of Parliament.  If this sounds circular, it is; but it has worked reasonably well for 332 years.

The "Founding Fathers" were steeped and versed in this constitutional  "Settlement" (as it was called).  Anyone (even a legal scholar) who bothers to read them can see that the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 provided the rough drafts of the U.S. Constitution.  Anyone who does not read the Constitution in the light of its historical English antecedents is playing the sola scriptura fool

The Constitution of course abolished hereditary monarchy. But it established a presidency with monarchical powers -- in effect, a pro tem elected monarchy.  But what to do when this new monarch got out of hand, the way James II had done?

As Hamilton observed in Federalist Paper No. 69, " The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution."   That indeed had been the case.  The only way to remove James II was through a Glorious Revolution which somewhat more than half of the country supported.  But since the American Monarch was elected and had no possible claim of Divine Right, the expedient offered for his removal from office was by means of impeachment, viz.:  "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.

Now, it must be said that, as pamphleteer, Hamilton was being a tad tongue in cheek when he implied that the British monarch could only be removed by a revolution.  After running James II out of country Parliament invited William and Mary to assume the throne; and when Queen Anne, Mary's sister and James II's youngest daughter, died, Parliament invited "the Hanoverians" to assume the throne, on which they have sat to this day.  Since 1688, England has never had to "impeach a monarch" but should  the need arise, there could be no doubt whatsoever that Parliament could do so on the principle that who grants can revoke.  More precisely, the 1701 Act of Settlement established the qualifications, by lineage and religion, of all future British monarchs.  The act has been on auto-pilot since then.  But no one doubts the power of Parliament to alter the terms of succession provided for in the Act.  Nor does anyone doubt the power of Parliament to enlarge or restrict the prerogatives, such as remain, of the monarch.  Writing in 1789, Hamilton was certainly aware of English constitutional history.  Were Parliament to seek to remove a monarch it would produce an political upheaval but removal would not require what the word "revolution" suggests.  

In all events, the American Constitution made the matter simple and straightforward.  Our pro tem, elected monarch could be removed from office by means of Congressional impeachment and conviction.   But to say as much is to say that "impeachment" has to be understood as an adaptation of the principle established by the Glorious Revolution; i.e. the legitimate head of state can be removed from office when there is a national consent that he is abusing his power and trust, albeit under colour of law.

Again, I have discussed the matter elsewhere; but to understand what was meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors" one again has to turn to the reign of James II, otherwise known as James-the-Envelope Pusher.  From the beginning of his reign, that monarch was pushing the limits of his prerogatives and testing the limits of the nation's tolerance.  A lot of what he did fell into the category of "obnoxious and annoying things kings always do"  -- high handed running over roughshod stuff.  

But one matter in particular irked most (but not all) of the country: James' announced Catholicism.  There was no law against his being Catholic, but people preferred he do it in the closet especially given the fact that he was supposed to be the temporal head of the English Church. Well James was old and childless and when he died the throne would pass his Protestant sister Mary.  So the country grit its teeth and waited.

But then James had a son whom, he announced, would be raised as a Catholic.  That was a high misdemeanor the country could not tolerate, because it signaled the end of the Reformation in England.  Nor was it only a matter of religion.  Behind the religious issue was James II's friendship with France and his preference for the centralized French mode of governance.  He was also allowing too many Jesuits into the country to meddle in All Things English.  He was, in short, legally and under color of law subverting the General Understanding which had been reached as to how things ought to be done and what the country was about.

The debates at the Constitutional Convention reveal that there was some question as to whether impeachment applied to lesser and more ordinary forms of malfeasance.  But the fact the participants were arguing over lesser points does not mean that they did not have the bigger lesson in mind.  If they didn't talk about James II and the Glorious Revolution, it was because they didn't need to.  It was understood; and not only as a matter of history in the Mother Country.  One of James II's initiatives was the so-called  "Andros Plan" which aimed to centralize administration of the American Colonies.  The plan was hated by the Colonists for obvious reasons and led to American's small but significant participation in the Glorious Revolution.  To wit:

"The 1689 Boston revolt was a popular uprising on April 18, 1689 against the rule of Sir Edmund Andros, the governor of the Dominion of New England.  A well-organized "mob" of provincial militia and citizens formed in the town of Boston, the capital of the dominion, and arrested dominion officials. Members of the Church of England were also taken into custody if they were believed to sympathize with the administration of the dominion. Neither faction sustained casualties during the revolt. Leaders of the former Massachusetts Bay Colony then reclaimed control of the government. In other colonies, members of governments displaced by the dominion were returned to power."  (Wiki)

Oh the Ironies of History!!!

Whether or not our Founding Father's were sympathetic to rioting insurrectionists taking over the seat of government, they certainly had not forgotten misbehaving king's abusing of government.  

Two conclusions flow from this historical background: (1) "impeachment" extends no further than removal from office and (2) "impeachment" is not to be confused with or used as the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no-confidence.

The first conclusion ought to be obvious.  The Constitution expressly states: impeachment "shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, ..."   The provision does not read "... or to disqualification...etc."    The conjunction "and" signifies that "disqualification" is an adjunct of "removal from office."   That "disqualification" is merely a derivative (and rather obvious) consequence of "removal"  is further shown by the fact that Hamilton doesn't even bother to mention "disqualification."  He refers only to removal from office.  The reason Hamilton only mentions "removal" is that his thinking was infused by the history I have just outlined.  Once James II was run out of town, his further "qualification" for holding any office was more than moot.

The second conclusion requires some further explanation.  Under the "Westminster System" the administration of government is handled by a Prime Minister.  If and when the opposition to the government attains a majority in Parliament, the government can be "toppled" by a vote of no-confidence.  A change of administration then takes place.

In the American system the position of head of state and head of government ("executive administration") are fused.  Thus, if the President could be removed from office on account of mere political opposition to his policies "impeachment" would become the equivalent of a "vote of no-confidence."

The Constitution gives the power of impeachment to the House (the American "Commons")  on a mere numerical majority.  But the Constitution prevents that from becoming a vote of no confidence by the fact that a trial is required in the Senate (our Lords).   Here again, a mere majority does not suffice to convict, but rather requires two thirds of those present.  The phrase "of those present" provides a certain amount of wiggle room but the overall thrust and intent of the provision is that "conviction on articles of impeachment" is not the equivalent of  a vote of "no-confidence."

That the impeachment process was viewed as something transcending ordinary partisan politics is also shown by the fact that the consequence is mere removal from office.  The party in power remains in power. The Vice President assumes the presidency and  the majorities in the House and Senate remain unaffected. No new elections are called for.

In my view nothing could be more clear than that impeachment was aimed solely at removing the head of state from office when there was a substantial national consensus that he was in some very serious manner subverting the Constitution, even if he was doing so under colour of law or in the exercise of an asserted prerogative "in the manner of James II."

That is an important constitutional device and it ought to be preserved for what it was intended.  Instead, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are abusing the process to exact personal revenge and for the sake of partisan advantage.  In this latter respect they are tacitly joined by a number of Republicans who seen political advantage in neutralizing the hold Trump holds on their party.

 

They rushed the articles of impeach through without any investigation or hearings.  Even the language of the article was vague and uncertain.  What Pelosicrats wanted was to get the impeachment started while Trump was in office so that they could then claim that, Oh gee, the ball was pitched, we'll now just have to try him while he is out office.  Meritless. The process "shall not extend further than removal."   Since Trump is no longer capable of being "removed" the process has reached its extent.

To be fair, abuse of the process began with the Republicans when they impeached President Clinton over nothing of any constitutional significance.  Now the chickens they spawned are coming home to roost.  But they are bad chickens all the same.  The use of impeachment to embarrass, stymy, forestall, blackmail the President and his party's agenda will serve only to turn partisan politics into ongoing political civil war.  The political life of the country should not be allowed to degenerate to such a state of affairs, no matter how much Nancy hates Donald, no matter how much Mitch wants Trump neutralized.  Once Trump is out of office, the issue of impeachment and conviction are moot.

This is not to say that Trump should not be neutralized.  It is only to say that the way to do so is by the way the Constitution allows. The same provision that provides for "removal" from office also provides for criminal prosecution once out of office.  That is what should done upon a diligent and thorough investigation and with all the attendant safeguards of a public jury trial.  That much would at least have judicial credibility, instead of the tawdry and sordid affair unprincipled politicians are pursuing. 

©wcg 2021

Heiko-the-Idiot Speaks Again!

 

"This should be extremely clear: Those who, like Trump, have spent years using words to constantly inflame and incite their own supporters, ultimately bear responsibility for this attack on the heart of American democracy. We see all around the world what happens when radical populists come to power and systematically stir up resentment against democratic institutions. Yes, democracy thrives on contradiction, even disagreement. But it dies when brute force silences the other, when sheer hatred breaks all bounds of decency and respect." (Heiko Maas in Der Spiegel Int'l. 7 Jan 21.)

Let us extremely parse the idiot's logic:

"Those who use words to inflame and incite their supporters bear responsibility for an attack committed by those supporters."

Notice how he does not define "inflame" or specify what these supporters were incited to do. Were they incited to violently break into the capitol? To physically disrupt the proceedings? What were the inciteful words used? Heiko does not say.

Instead he rattles on to prattle about "radical populists" who "systematically stir up resentment against democratic institutions." Like Lenin perhaps? Or maybe John Adams inflaming Bostonians against entirely legitimate Parliamentary rule which, in the misinforming fake news of the day, he falsely described as "monarchical tyranny".

So we are left to infer that "incitement" really means "stirring up resentment" This is precisely the language of notorious statutes against seditious libel, the Mother of All Statutes being the English law that prohibited any speech which had a tendency to bring the Crown or into "hatred or contempt" or if it promoted discontent or hostility between citizens.  The American statute followed faithfully, prohibiting any malicious statement against the government or exciting "the hatred of the good people of the United States."

Aha.

From this lofty heap of insults dressed in pieties, Heiko tumbles into the deep bullshit of "Yes, democracy thrives on contradiction, even disagreement" Yes! in a democracy we can contradict one another EVEN to the point of disagreement and surpassing agreeing contradiction.

Whu????

Well maybe he means agreeable contradiction; i.e. disagreements HE doesn't particularly mind.

Paddling around in this verbal swill he attempts to extricate himself by pontifically postulating that democracy "dies when brute force silences the other, when sheer hatred breaks all bounds of decency and respect."

Oh ... it is just too choice. Brute force? This from the man who three years ago pronounced "free speech ends where the criminal law begins."

Uh huh? Exactly whose "brute force" are we talking about here?

But let us be charitable! Let us suppose that that what Heiko has in mind is some band of radicalized thugs who go beyond "inflaming" or "disparaging" and fall to beating up on their opponents. No one in his right mind would disagree that resorting to violence to make a political point (or even to make no point at all) is bad. Very bad. It should even be punished!

Let us be even more charitable and, for the sake of argument at least, assume that the riotous breaking into the Capitol was "brute violence." What has that to do with "sheer hatred break[ing] all bounds of decency and respect."

This is exactly how sophists insinuate and confuse.

Note the "," and the lack of either an "and" or and "or." Does Heiko mean to equate "brute force" with "sheer hatred" or does he mean to contrast brute force with sheer hatred? He intentionally leaves it ambiguous.

Why? Because he knows the "brute force" is not the same as "sheer hatred." One can hate intensely without resorting to force. One can shout and scream filled with anger and hatred and still not resort resort to brute force. Brute force is physical violence. Sheer hatred is speech and/or emotion. One is criminal; the other is protected speech.

So how does Heiko fuse the two together, so that "hatred" becomes indistinguishable from "brute force"? He does so with the phrase "breaks all bounds of decency and respect."

So, Oh German, what do you do with Martin Luther, whose "sheer hatred" of the "Whore of Bablyon" certainly "broke" all bounds of "decency and respect".... at least from a papal point of view?

Here too, "break" has both a literal and a metaphorical meaning which is left insinuatingly ambiguous. In this manner Heiko equates indecency and disrespect with brute force... so that speech can end and the criminal law begin. 

 

 

What a despicable little shit. Put a uniform on him and he looks just like the perfect bureaucrat of 70 years ago. And in truth he speaks the same language albeit with slightly different catchwords.

 

-oOo-

 

By and large Der Spiegel has been a reliable Atlanto-Liberal magazine; that is, it suscribes to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and supports close trans-atlantic neoliberalism.  Domestically, it was known for its "telegraphic" style of reporting and a certain amount of sardonic muck-raking.  In the 1970's and 1980's it did a fair amount of "retro-reporting" on the Nazi era, which was non-hysterical and somewhat like what they might have reported at the time had they been allowed to.  Originally Social Democratic, the difference between social and christian democratic is nowadays more of a fine point than anything else.  It has not shied away from inconvenient realities. All in all it is a more "popular" version of the Economist with a broader range of reported subject matter.  Of late, however, they have increasingly become just another biased bull-horn for the Four Freedoms; that is corporate globalism dressed up in multi-cultural  drag.  In this regard, they resort to the usual tricks, as for instance running a report of "What Germans Think" about such-and-so, under a picture of cross-ethnic and multi-racial faces, as if to visually suggest that "Germany" is "just the world at large in all its wonderful, glowy, diversity." That rather begs a grundsatz issue.  That they would publish this insidious Heiko Hogwash (Quatsch} shows that they have cast off their fig leaf without shame. 

 

 

©wcg 2021

 

 

The Liberal Assault on Liberalism

 

"... Apple and Google removed [Parler] from their app stores because they said it had not sufficiently policed its users’ posts, allowing too many that encouraged violence and crime."   ---Today's NYSlime, in glee mode.

"POLICED"

Not a peep of protest from the Slime.  On the contrary, they are creaming in their pants that their loathed opponents are being silenced.

I find it astonishing that erstwhile liberals would be applauding the policing of public forums.  That is what police states do.    That is what the segregationist press did.   That   is....   Is it really necessary to catalogue?

"The mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." (Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 367 U. S. 297-298 (1961).)

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444  (1969), the Court again explained the boundaries of free speech.  In that case, 12 hooded figures, some of whom carried firearms had gathered around a large wooden cross, which they burned. No else one was present.  The defendant, in Klan regalia, made a speech, in which he said,

"This is an organizers' meeting. We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken. ...  We are marching on Congress July the Fourth, four hundred thousand strong.  ...   Personally, I believe the nigger should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel."   (Id., at p. 447.)

Though some of the figures in the films carried weapons, the speaker did not.  Defendant was prosecuted under an Ohio statute which prohibited ""advocat[ing] or teach[ing]  the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence..."

The Supreme Court reversed…

"Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action"  (Id., at p. 449.)

The distinction is not that difficult to fathom and is illustrated by the facts in Brandenburg.  Had a Negro chanced to walk by on the other side of the field or on the road, during the meeting, and had defendant thereupon shouted: "Hey boys, there he goes! Let's go teach that coon what we mean!" that would have been incitement to imminent action.   Although the words might precede the conduct, if they are immediately connected to the conduct such that they can be called the immediate and proximate cause, then they have incited unlawful action and are not protected by the First Amendment. 

Of course, every case will depend on its particular circumstances.  If the defendant have been addressing a group of journalists, then it would be highly unlikely and unreasonable to suppose that the words would result in immediate action.    It must be remembered that when the Supreme Court hears these cases they do so after the fact.  What did or did not result from the words spoken is a known fact.   The case is otherwise when prior censorship is used; that is, when words are spoken without there being any known effect.   

In this latter case, the trend has been to censor speech on the ground that it could  lead to some adverse consequence or on the ground that the words spoken have a tendency to provoke disturbances or bring the government into disrepute.   This is the language of the old sedition statutes which make a shambles of free speech.  "Could" is a matter of speculation and an argument can always be made that some words could, might, or should certainly result in some unacceptable consequences.   But this is not an objective measure. Notwithstanding the sociological and statistical mumbo-jumbo that is often brought to bear, it is simply an argument and arguments can always be rustled up to suppress speech that the powers that be do not like.   

Now, as I've said elsewhere, Google, Twitter and social media are privately owned.  But that doesn't solve the problem it makes it worse.  Even medieval peasants understood the evil of "enclosing" common lands, which is what has happened.  

The internet was developed with public funds and is and ought to be regarded as a public space.  For a variety of technical reasons it has been effectively taken over by private corporations who now wish to treat it as their private domain to do with what they wont.  

Amur'kans ever sucking the cock of the free market and private ownership think this is just fine.  Who has the bucks, calls the shots.  What could be more natural?!  For shame.

First Amendment protections should be extended to "commons" even if they are privately owned, as I argued yesterday.

Most of what people have to say is garbage.  Just look at Martin Luther for example!  His words triggered a 30 year long war that cost 8 million lives.   But if the dogs in the field have a natural right to howl, so too man.   It should not be curtailed or policed no matter what the excuse. 

Historically, speech suppression has been the hallmark of monarchs and reactionary institutions like the Church.   But of late it has been pushed by the "liberal" establishment with a ferocity and vindictiveness that exceeds anything mustered by Torquemada or Savanarola.    The hypocrisy drips from their sputtering mouths.   They extol "diversity" and claim to value "vigorous debate"  but then they turn like rabid hyenas on anything they peremptorily denouncet as "inappropriate," "unacceptable" or  "beyond the pale".  Of course!  Of course we value free speech... .but not this!   

Liberals have managed to prove that they, as much as anyone else, are a threat to democracy which can only be based on free speech.

Just as wretchedly, they accomplish their aims by destroying language itself.   Argument or explanation is reduced to a barrage of free floating, inflammatory adjectives ("hateful," "extremist,"  "terrorist")  or verbs unmodified by any prepositional phrase. It was said that Trump "incited" the crowd.  Incited to what?   What did Trump actually say that supposedly triggered a mob assault into the Senate chamber? No answer.  Instead, from the outset the media rushed to label the riot a "coup" and an "insurrection" both of which -- if words are to have any meaning -- presuppose conspiracy, organization and intent.  But again, no facts.  Two days later Pelosi called it an "unbalanced assault" -- whatever the hell that is. This is nothing but language as flash-bang. It is, of course, the sort of thing Trump does in his own fashion, but it is resorted to in equal measure by his opponents and by the august New York Slime, whose headlines in the past few days have been an undiluted demagoguery of their own

The reduction of speech to un-nuanced, emotional trigger-words is the essence of Orwellian mind control; and in this the liberals have proved themselves adept and shameless. 

We are tired of having to constantly explain the basics of free speech and to defend it against sanctimonious guardians, such as the Woke Feminist Guardian, Heiko-the-Idiot, Jacinda-the-Mournful, the unaccountable owners and guardians of social media and, of course, the New York Slime.   But among the many causes of dismay in the country, none is more insidious and dangerous than the debasement of language coupled with the suppression of opposing points of view.  

Since liberals seem to be hooked on Nazi and Fascist analogies,  I might point out that it took an actual fire in the Reichstag to provide a passable justification for enacting the Law for the Protection of the People and the Reich.   For today's establishment liberals a mere riot will do.   If we constantly explain and defend the principles of free speech it is because it is threatened by a liberal crusade to make the internet and public spaces, safe, inoffensive, politically and factually correct; that is, (stripped of bullshit), to rid it of things they don't like.   It is my fear that just as 9/11 was used as the pretext for instituting the Nation Security State, this riot will be used as an excuse to dox, vet, sanitize and control speech and information; to safeguard our democracy for the right-thinking people who deserve it!

Bah.

The Black Cat

Needless to say, Antifa & the Pelosicrats are rejoicing that Trump got his mouth suspended from Twitter. Alvin and the Chipmunks are leading the Chorus. (Alvin is the name of the NYSlime Editorial Board.) Beware meeses. When the Black Cat goes around he comes around.

Let us be clear...there is at least probable cause to believe that Trump incited the disruption of an official act and that is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2384. It is my belief that that is also the meaning of a "high misdemeanor" and is grounds for impeaching him. But assuming Trump were to be impeached or be found guilty of a crime (neither of which has as of yet occurred) that does not mean he should be banned from Twitter.

It is one of the utter perversities of the neo-liberal system that what are in effect public spaces can be privately owned. It is no answer to this to say that Twitter is privately owned and that the Mr. Moneybags who owns it can do with it what he wills. In the first place that begs the question of what to do with public spaces that are privately owned. In the second place it is not true.

In Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980),  the USSC upheld a California Supreme Court ruling which prohibited private shopping centers from prohibiting passers by from exercising their free speech on the premises. Various states have followed the California court's lead on this.

Although the Supreme Court did not uphold Pruneyard under the First Amendment it has recently recognized one of the underpinnings of that case. In Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), the Court held that the government may not prevent convicted criminals from using the internet (Facebook). In reaching this conclusion the Court found that social media, like Facebook and Twitter served the function of a public commons." That is a very important finding. It dispels the idea that it is sufficient to say "Nyah nyah it's my property!" Social media may be privately owned but it is not simply private property.

From this premise, the Court went on to hold that the Government (in this case North Carolina) could not prohibit a convicted sex offender from cruising the internet.... no matter what blabbidy blab about "risk" and "sacred innocent children" and "improper content" it resorted to. In a unanimous decision the court ruled "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more ... By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." Justice Kennedy added: "It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'."

Thus even if Trump were actually impeached or convicted the government (state or federal) could not bar him from using the internet.

The question then becomes can Twitter (a private entity) do what the government cannot do even before Trump has been convicted of anything? Can a private entity pre-emptively prohibit speech? Pre-emptively, mind you, which gives rise to what the Supreme Court has condemned as a "chilling effect" on freedom.

Packingham did not answer this question. But if you read Prunedale and Packingham together the answer ought to be a resounding NO.

Of course, the First Amendment only applies to government action. But the underlying difficulty is that private actors hold a monopoly on what is acknowledged to be a public space. If you grant Twitter or Facebook the right and the power to censor and pre-censor speech then you have basically shit-canned the exercise of free speech in the modern world.

Do you really want to do that? You may hate Trump and pedophiles, or the "alt right" or "extremist" or this or that. But these are just labels. One day you will say something that will "deeply offend" someone or make a person feel "threatened" or "assaulted." You may say something that is "beyond the pale," "devoid of reason" or that "denies a self evident (cough) fact!" blah, blah, blah. The outrages and the excuses of censors are always the same.

Just remember: first they silenced criminals, but I am not a criminal; then they silenced extremists, but I am not an extremist, then they came and silenced me. The Black Cat always makes its rounds.

Meeses would be well advised not to cheer. 

©wcg 2021

Hate

When a person hates something, he or she is misled into doing stupid things. Does that mean that one should not hate? Not in the least. Hate is good. The solution is to hate everything equally.
.