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.