Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Something happened this evening that seriously pissed me off with two politicians; one of whom I had to inform he is no longer permitted to have any contact with my ward of guardianship because of his making threats to harm my ward. Below is the article I published on Linkedin discussing about our right to criticize.
When did politicians get to decide who has the right to criticize them and when, how, where, and why?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-did-politicians-get-decide-who-has-right-them-christopher?published=u
In the quest to understand our First Amendment right to criticize politicians, we need only look to the landmark cases of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
In the New York Times case, Justice Brennan gave the opinion of the court. In citing other cases, he wrote that when it comes to the First Amendment, "[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," and that “this opportunity is to be afforded for "vigorous advocacy" no less than "abstract discussion” Id. at 269.
In the case of Hustler Magazine, Inc., Chief Justice Rehnquist gave the opinion of the court. In citing other cases, he wrote that when it comes to the First Amendment right to criticize, “At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "[T]he freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty — and thus a good unto itself — but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." Id. at 50-51.
If there is anything clear about the New York Times Co., and Hustler Magazine, Inc., cases it is that if a person is going to step into the limelight of public service then they knowingly, willfully, and intentionally give citizen's a right to criticize them, certainly of lawful means, and absence a showing of malice, the politician must accept that the voice of the citizen has a fundamental place and importance in our democratic processes even when their speech is caustic, or simply unflattering, or exposes what the politician does that is wrong or violates the law.
However, all too often politicians look for ways to retaliate against citizens who speak their minds and criticize the politician - whether it is by sabotaging a Bill the citizen advocates for, banning the citizen from communicating with them or their staff, or threatening to harm the citizen or someone they know, in some meaningful way, etc., etc., etc.
I recall reading an opinion piece published in the Springfield News Leader a week ago, that mirrors what I have often heard among those in mainstream media, in that the Republican Party propaganda created the popularity of Donald Trump in his run for President. Regardless whether you agree or disagree with his politics, the fact of the matter is, Donald Trump is very popular among a huge number of citizens throughout our country.
Where I differ from the opinion piece is that I believe Republican’s are not solely to blame for Donald Trump’s popularity because at the heart of the matter is how the entire establishment of politicians have acted, that so many people are simply fed up with the status quo, the corruption, and the game playing that goes on, on both sides of the isle.
Simply put, Trump’s popularity stems from the fact that he has what all the rest of us want – the voice that politicians have stolen from us, whether because of their narcissistic personalities, or because they believe citizens have no right to participate in their own government and its processes. Thus, Donald Trump does what all the rest of us want to do, in that of forcing politicians to listen by speaking his mind freely and openly that he has become the epitome of what is meant by the guaranteed rights discussed in both the New York Times Co., and Hustler Magazine, Inc., cases.
If politicians do not like to be criticized then they have two choices. Either resign or do their jobs right. But what they don't have the right to do is threaten, coerce, or intimidate citizen's who criticize them, or demand that citizen's sit silently in the darkest of shadows and say nothing to legislators in support or opposition of a Bill.
When did politicians get to decide who has the right to criticize them and when, how, where, and why?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-did-politicians-get-decide-who-has-right-them-christopher?published=u
In the quest to understand our First Amendment right to criticize politicians, we need only look to the landmark cases of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
In the New York Times case, Justice Brennan gave the opinion of the court. In citing other cases, he wrote that when it comes to the First Amendment, "[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," and that “this opportunity is to be afforded for "vigorous advocacy" no less than "abstract discussion” Id. at 269.
In the case of Hustler Magazine, Inc., Chief Justice Rehnquist gave the opinion of the court. In citing other cases, he wrote that when it comes to the First Amendment right to criticize, “At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "[T]he freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty — and thus a good unto itself — but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." Id. at 50-51.
If there is anything clear about the New York Times Co., and Hustler Magazine, Inc., cases it is that if a person is going to step into the limelight of public service then they knowingly, willfully, and intentionally give citizen's a right to criticize them, certainly of lawful means, and absence a showing of malice, the politician must accept that the voice of the citizen has a fundamental place and importance in our democratic processes even when their speech is caustic, or simply unflattering, or exposes what the politician does that is wrong or violates the law.
However, all too often politicians look for ways to retaliate against citizens who speak their minds and criticize the politician - whether it is by sabotaging a Bill the citizen advocates for, banning the citizen from communicating with them or their staff, or threatening to harm the citizen or someone they know, in some meaningful way, etc., etc., etc.
I recall reading an opinion piece published in the Springfield News Leader a week ago, that mirrors what I have often heard among those in mainstream media, in that the Republican Party propaganda created the popularity of Donald Trump in his run for President. Regardless whether you agree or disagree with his politics, the fact of the matter is, Donald Trump is very popular among a huge number of citizens throughout our country.
Where I differ from the opinion piece is that I believe Republican’s are not solely to blame for Donald Trump’s popularity because at the heart of the matter is how the entire establishment of politicians have acted, that so many people are simply fed up with the status quo, the corruption, and the game playing that goes on, on both sides of the isle.
Simply put, Trump’s popularity stems from the fact that he has what all the rest of us want – the voice that politicians have stolen from us, whether because of their narcissistic personalities, or because they believe citizens have no right to participate in their own government and its processes. Thus, Donald Trump does what all the rest of us want to do, in that of forcing politicians to listen by speaking his mind freely and openly that he has become the epitome of what is meant by the guaranteed rights discussed in both the New York Times Co., and Hustler Magazine, Inc., cases.
If politicians do not like to be criticized then they have two choices. Either resign or do their jobs right. But what they don't have the right to do is threaten, coerce, or intimidate citizen's who criticize them, or demand that citizen's sit silently in the darkest of shadows and say nothing to legislators in support or opposition of a Bill.
The belief politicians have is extremely detrimental to our country; it is contrary to the freedoms that American veterans fought to protect, and it serves to chill speech that serves a public interest. When politicians or anyone in government sets themselves so high above the people as to render themselves immune from criticism and to have a right to retaliate or to threaten, intimidate, or coerce a citizen who criticizes them, then we no longer have a free and civilized country that adheres to the Rule of Law.
If politicians cannot or will not accept constructive criticism or even criticism that is merely a rant to vent, then they have absolutely no business being in a public office and the politician needs to resign. We, as American citizens, are the employers of politicians - they exist at the will of the public, by our voting them into office rather than the public being subservient to politicians.
At least Donald is no Hillary... Now there is a frightening woman.
But I have to agree... Donald is doing what many wish they had the gonads to do... Plain old speak out and call out the current guard to our liberties and ask them WTF. That doesn't make him a good candidate, but it does make his campaign entertaining.
I know if I had no reason to fear any consequences for really speaking my mind about things, oh the stuff I would say... heh But even free speech isn't free, there is always a price of some kind, otherwise we'd all be doing it from every roof top about who know what... :)
I think a whole lot of citizens fear speaking their minds, whether it is because of potential retaliation, and so, yes, when we look at Donald Trump there is a certain relief he brings people simply and only by the fact that he is so free in saying whatever he wants to criticize politicians - without fear of repercussions from them.
As an independent, I criticize those on both sides of the isle. So, it is not like I am targeting only one party or one party member. I pretty much think that in a lot of ways all politicians have done their fair share to destroy our country and harm citizens. Among those ways is their belief that citizens have no right to speak their mind and criticize them.
We leave the same old politicians in year after year, even though they have done a horrible job of representing this country and the working class, the common folks. I mention working class since I doubt there are any wealthy people on this board.
These politicians will vote time and time again for laws to oppress the working class, yet the common folk will continue to vote for them.
Politicians did not attain office through some type of complex military coup. They were invited to their position by the millions of voters in this country.
This is still OUR country and if it fails, it will be OUR fault for not educating ourselves about the candidates and the issues----and getting out to vote.
Frankly, I think we should vote the majority of incumbents out and start electing someone who really cares about this country. It they don't do a good job, vote them out. After about four or five cycles of this electing and booting them out, maybe the politicians will get the hint that they can---and will---be replaced if they do not serve us well.
rewdiazepam
Our state representative is terming out and there are four others running for his spot; two in each party. So, I sent all of them an email detailing my position on what is the most important issue to me. I invited them to meet with me and my ward, to get to know us and for us to get to know them. Only one acted on my invitation.
The reason people don't demand that politicians change their ways is because they have been trained to not care, to rely on the government for things and to just not question anything. (which is where the lack of critical thinking skills is really apparent in our younger generations.)
First, only an attorney is permitted to practice law and drafting legislation and thereby making law is the same as practicing law for, which no ordinary citizen regardless of background or education who is not an attorney has the right to be a "law maker."
Second, only attorneys can understand the law, the complexities involved, and how to draft legal and proper legislation because it involves matters of law and the need to understand law.
While I agree that one needs to have a basic understanding in matters of law and how to draft legislation to create laws, I strongly oppose allowing only attorneys' to be legislators. They already do too damn much harm by way of the courts, so we certainly do not need them controlling the legislative branch so they can "rule the world."
They also stated that there were to be no Statutes/laws created at the federal level other than the constitution. They also stated that there was to be no income tax...
If they knew what our politicians were doing to their brain child they would be ashamed of all of us. So what was the beauty of the constitution was that it could be changed by the likes of plain citizens, but it was also its downfall too.... because we can change it, those in power can rewrite the rules however they see fit.
Laws should be drafted so that they can be easily understood and interpreted by ANYONE that is supposed to abide by them. Hard to follow laws that you can't understand since we as citizens are responsible for not breaking them even if we don't know they exist.
Even when laws are drafted so that layman can understand the problem then turns to how they are used and abused in the judicial system. It is all too often a maze of trickery and outright deceit, and most often to favor the rich and government.
This is why I find it pathetically amusing when I hear government officials proclaim that we are a nation of laws that abides by the Rule of Law, when, of course, it suits their agendas only.
In this aspect, Donald Trump is right when he says the system is rigged because it is and it is not going to change as long as we keep electing the status quo.
Hate to bust your bubble there, but the experts have weighed in on the argument of what our founding fathers intended. . . .
http://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/religious-liberty-experts-weigh-in-on-sjr-39
Here is the comment I posted in a blog update on Linkedin . . .
By what you are saying Josh Hawley, then we must acknowledge that terrorists are free to do as they please because, according to them, they are acting upon religious beliefs. The absurdity of such is no more or less than your argument that we must legalize discrimination because it serves God.
Josh Hawley is one heck of an arrogant SOB who is running for Missouri State Attorney General. Although Missouri prohibits attorneys from holding themselves our and advertising that they are an "expert" in any specific area of law, when I read his campaign web site last, he claims to be an expert in constitutional law. When I sent him an email pointing out that he was violating the ethical obligations imposed on attorneys in Missouri, he, of course, ignored me. Lord help us all if he gets elected.
Like all things though, the constitution can be interpreted in so many ways, for as I see it, the first amendment protects a person's ability to worship however they choose to whomever they choose, but if they cause harm to anyone around them or to someone else's property it then became a matter of law and subject to punishment. Which does not give religious terrorists free reign, all it gives them is a right to worship however they choose as long as it doesn't bring harm to others.
I understand that how the world works is very corrupt beyond measure and an unforgiving place. That these zealots are hypocrites with so many skeletons in their closets there is no room for clothes.
I also don't believe that there can ever be a true separation of church and state, beliefs are too much part of who we are and how we function in our day to day lives. For many it is the basis of their ethics and morals. But we can move those people through those offices of power by using our own voting power to keep those positions turning over term after term.
The problems with this country are so many but what all of those things boil down to are the people themselves. The greed, the yearning for more power, the willingness to step all over your neighbor to get ahead, the whole keeping up with the Jones', there are just so many to name... As a whole people we have lost sight of many of the important things that made our species so unique. So completely absorbed by our instant lives now, that seeing past the smart phone, tablet or computer is almost impossible for the generations be born today. They will never know a life without an internet connection or a smart phone. They will never have the buffer of a childhood where you can make mistakes and they stay in the past, whereas today, that digital footprint is far and wide and cashed on hundreds of computers and servers world wide. Don't get me wrong I'm not giving up my phone, but there has been little to no consideration to what all of this tech is really doing to our world as a whole. They used to talk about lojack for all citizens, they did one even better, smartphones, we carry them, can't live without them, you can track your children's phones with them. But by utilizing all of this cool tech, we don't even realize what we have given up and many never will know what they gave up, because as long as it doesn't affect their day to day life, their immediate comfort or pleasure then it isn't their problem. Bottom line. the same can be said for the vast majority of people of the human race.
Our constitution was created to ensure limited intrusion by those in government. However, over time it has been amended, as the framers gave that right to do, to include other aspects because the framers knew they could not possibly account for evolution. In this respect, the Constitution is a living and breathing document because it was never intended to sit idly in stagnation for all eternity.
This is both good and bad. On the good side, it allows us to account for and incorporate things that take place as time passes and issues come to life. On the bad side, it allows us to destroy what our framers wanted for us, by what we codify into the Constitution by way of amendments. The issues of good verses bad will never end because what is good and what is bad is a matter of interpretation depending on which side of the isle one stands in their beliefs and avocations.
The double edged sword comes into play by the fact that while government should be the least intrusive as possible, the need for that intrusion arises because of how mankind acts towards each other.
Take, for the sake of illustration, the issues of the LGBT community. Those on the religious side claim they have the legal right or should have the legal right for it to be written into law or Constitution that they can discriminate against people because of their sexuality. And yet, the religious class does not apply the same argument to heterosexuals who engage in what is or can be said to be immoral sexual behaviors by the standards of others. And I might point out, that, suffice to say, a huge number of the religious right winger's are the same people buying porn, committing adultery, and engaging in other immoral sexual acts. Thus, they want legal rights to use against a specific class that they refuse to impose against themselves. They want the legal right to discriminate but do not want to be discriminated against themselves.
So, laws have to be created to address the issues man causes, and something that the framers never thought about to specifically address when they created our Constitution. Thus, in this respect government intrusion is needed and can be a good thing depending on what is done, to ensure that no person is deprived the right to life, liberty, and property (until the U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily decided to change the word to "happiness" instead).
The argument Josh Hawley makes is absurd. That laws permitting discrimination are good because such laws allow the practice of religion by ensuring those in government cannot interfere with the religious beliefs. Using his argument, then the same can be equally applied to terrorist for they too claim to be acting on religious beliefs and practice, against governmental intrusions on their religious beliefs. His argument is simply absurd and nothing more than fast talking politician rhetoric to push his own right wing religious agendas on the people.
Meanwhile, I wrote him in my email and copied the Ethics Commission, he is not complying with ethical obligations that govern attorneys by claiming to be a "leading national expert" on constitutional and religious liberty laws. Missouri ethical rules governing attorneys expressly prohibits an attorney from claiming status of an expert. Thus, all while he is preaching and demanding the right to discriminate against the LGBT community he is refusing to comply with his own ethical obligations. And the guy is running for public office in that of the Missouri Attorney General's office.
I absolutely agree with you and have said myself that people have lost sight of the important things and that we are a nation of hypocrites. We live and breath the claim that the rules always apply, but only to someone else. Money is not the root of all evil, greed is. Money is just the vehicle by which greed plays out in terms of status, materialist ownership, and power over others. The more we have the more we want because we are never satisfied as a result of the habitual competition we are in with others. And this is why we demand this law or that law be created, so we have more power over others.