A few years ago, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a basic free speech principle: “the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned or deeply misguided and likely to cause anguish or incalculable grief.”
It’s a sleight of hand. They couldn’t prosecute her for using racial slurs, so they found a vague enough law to go after her for something else. If her behavior (minus the slurs) would normally result in prosecution, America would have run out of prisons a long time ago.
Sue whom? The Somali man just made a video. And the courts are immune from suit. Lastly, I don’t see a “deprivation of civil rights” under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. The judge made an error in not immediately dismissing the case when the prosecution rested its case, but as indicated, courts are immune from suit over error.
She was harassed and then convicted of disorderly conduct. Doesn’t she have a right to say words? I’m sure that you are correct but I am struggling to understand what law she broke.
All of the wrongful conviction cases (financial claims) depend on “exoneration”: (1) there having been evidence at the time that proves the defendant could not have committed the crime and (2) that that evidence was known to the police/prosecutor or would have been known absent failures of routine procedures.
I’m not aware of any financial payouts where the defendant received a settlement because of a change in a point of law, e.g., the famous 1966 SCOTUS case “Miranda v. Arizona.” Miranda was retried excluding his statements to the police, but was convicted again, this time using his jailhouse statements to his girlfriend.
A classic financial settlement fact pattern would be police not submitting DNA evidence for testing and that omission being challenged years later by a competent appellate attorney, whereupon it’s tested and the prisoner’s DNA is a complete mismatch.
So we have 1A rights but absolutely no recourse to justice when those rights are violated, we just have to take it? There is no path to fight this and no one has ever sued and won for this kind of violation?
You misunderstand the limited scope of my reply to Aladdin. He asked about “suing for damages,” which is a civil claim. Shiloh Hendrix has criminal appeal rights regarding her misdemeanor conviction – to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, then to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court. Normally, misdemeanor cases like this would be turned down by both Supreme Courts, but as a 1A case, they would likely hear it. It’s hard to believe her conviction would survive the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Yes, legally, but people often seem to use it as the catch all term for legal challenges. One of those never ending situations where how people use a term isn't strictly accurate.
The only good thing out of this whole debacle is getting to read Gigachad Clarence Thomas write a complete repudiation of fighting words in a couple years.
And on the other end of things compelled speech is running amok and no court case exists to attempt to prevent it. Either my rights are respected by all parties or I have none. I'm thinking of the baseball players that wrote Bible verses and were fined and suspended. If your company can do to you, you have no rights nor a government that will protect those rights.
Employers can fire you for your speech. The key is they can’t imprison you. Baseball players (and all pro athletes) have contracts spelling out unacceptable actions & language off the field. Employers are not required to continue associating with an individual they consider harmful to the employer’s reputation. Refer to the case of James Damore fired by Google in 2017 for writing an internal memo on Google’s Slack channel questioning DEI, which other employees took public to force Google’s hand to fire Damore.
I’m not making an argument. I’m explaining employment law through examples. Your employer can fire you if it doesn’t like the color of your tie. However, our economy depends on most employers being rational.
Federal employment law prohibits employers from discriminating between employees based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, and genetic information.
ALL other bases (including tie color) are permissible. You may not like it, but those are the facts. This is not an argument – it’s a factual statement.
The Constitution grants no privately held group, company, corporation and not even itself God Given Rights!…the government is instituted to PROTECT those Rights no matter who the offender is. If the government fails to do that, I submit you HAVE NONE because then any Joe blow can run over them including your employer,who has been granted no larger right than me. Your just a statist who prefers to outsource his thinking to authority not granted to anybody under the Constitution. Or is that too free?……
What about employers’ (or the stockholders’ of the employers) right to not be damaged by employees’ public speech or actions? The employer doesn’t have freedom of association?
What about Andy Byron and Kristin Cabot on the KissCam at the Coldplay concert last year, with him hugging her from behind and his hands on her boobs? An obvious affair between a married CEO and his head of HR (the wife of the current head of a 300 year old Boston family). Both of them left the company within a week, in lieu of firing.
After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, hundreds of assholes expressed their joy on SM not just that he was gone, but at the brutality of his death. Dozens were fired from their jobs by employers disgusted by those employees’ newly revealed despicable opinions, attitudes and morals.
Agree they were dispicable, do not agree with firing them over speech, that always comes back around to bite YOU. Yeah, liberty REQUIRES a thick skin.I stand by what I said. It the INDIVIDUALS liberty isn't protected by ALL parties invited, none of us retain ANY!.......what is difficult about this?..the Constitution protects INDIVIDUSLS!....After all, the smallest minority is a minority of ONE!.....
Bob, for the most part, our Constitution doesn't grant rights. For the most part regarding rights the Constitution merely declares rights (including everything in the First Amendment). In that regard, the Constitution is highly analogous to the Declaration of Independence. Independence was declared, not granted, in 1776. The declaration didn't deliver independence. The Declaration of Independence would have meant very little without people fighting for another 8 years (or more, counting the War of 1812). Our Constitution would mean very little without people (like FIRE) fighting to accomplish what it promises.
Just like independence wasn't granted by the Declaration, our rights were not granted by the Constitution. Our rights also aren't given to us by any God. As the Preamble emphasizes, "We the People of the United States" established our own supreme power to declare our own rights when the People did "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The People demanded a bill of rights. That's why the Constitution was amended virtually immediately to add the first 10 amendments.
I think you’ve repeatedly made an error: our rights are not declared by men; they are conferred by God: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” The 9A specifically says we have other rights not listed.
The Bill of Rights does not even declare our rights. It is 9 Amendments that prohibit the government from doing certain things. The 10th says the states get to do everything not specifically allocated to the Federal government.
The 1A constrains the government (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) from restricting the content of speech. This was (and remains) a major issue under the British government, and derivative governments (Canada & Australia.)
Esoterically, this is because the U.S. has a constitution that is superior to all 3 branches and all states, whereas the British Commonwealth governments derive their authority from the King & Parliament, not the People. For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an act of the Canadian Parliament. Since the Parliament is controlled by the majority party at any given time, the People really don’t have much protection when complaining about the majority party’s agenda. Trudeau proved this by imprisoning people who spoke against the Canadian COVID programs. And it’s why the Biden admin’s actions in that same direction were both unconstitutional and illegal.
Consider the Tenth Amendment to see the point of the Constitution. That amendment was written to summarize our Constitution. Certain limited "powers" were "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Other "powers" were "prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States." Other "powers" were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." None of that has anything to do with the relative powers of employers and employees except to the extent that state or federal governments are employers and employees of both are U.S. citizens who are (as Article IV and Amendment XIV emphasize) entitled to all the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens.
I do not see a “subject matter” connection between (1) the 10th Amendment (allocating powers between the States and the Federal government) and (2) the supposed prohibition on discretionary employment termination by private employers.
There is no connection. As I said at the conclusion of my comment:
None of that has anything to do with the relative powers of employers and employees except to the extent that state or federal governments are employers and employees of both are U.S. citizens who are (as Article IV and Amendment XIV emphasize) entitled to all the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens.
Interesting, "privileges and immunities" both are something government grants to me via specific membership, not something I already possess via God,.... I.E., a RIGHT as enshrined, not granted in the Constition. I still maintain the Constitution itself grants no other entity authority over me. But how does the Constitutional, legal framework not produce a cultural one that follows it?....
“I still maintain the Constitution itself grants no other entity authority over me.”
I think you’re overlooking that the American colonies generally followed English common law as it stood in 1776. ECL provided for an elected legislature empowered to pass binding laws that set forth crimes and punishments. The 10A implicitly endorsed this by allocating to the States all powers not addressed in the Constitution.
Exactly where I think we have failed,if our legislative bodies were to create statute UNDER the Constitution, it did a pretty poor job of it by following what existed instead of what COULD be. As a general rule that is where I base my arguments, what we have now is working pretty poorly and to the benifit of the rich and powerful, to whom YOU and folks like you relent, its easy, its the path of least resistance...people are more than happy to,once again, out source their thinking to "what is".....neither of you have answered a single question of mine, thanks.....to be sure, if the final arbiter of the governments actions are THE PEOPLE, where is my liberty not stated?......
Not sure I agree with the absolutist position. Words MEANT to start a fight are not protected - After “Hey I saw your mother died, I sure am glad the bitch is dead”, a punch in the nose is to be expected and a First Amendment prosecution of the puncher for violating expressive conduct would be wrong.
Of course this does not apply to the Shiloh Hendrix case, the aggressor in this case ASKED FOR the words to be repeated with the express PURPOSE of harming the speaker.
This is all well said and I do agree. But I do have a question: to what extent was the GiveSendGo campaign supporting her (between 700,000 and 1 million dollars) the week after the incident have any impact on the charges, court decision, or any other aspect of the case? I don’t like the precedent this conviction sets but I do wonder if that publicity (and dollar amount) poisoned the well a bit.
I can’t imagine retaining a lawyer for a case like this would have cost her 700k to one million dollars (a subsequent case likely would). But I have no idea. I’m more just curious if that fundraiser (which was premised on providing safety to her family) affected the judgment of the court.
John, you could look much closer to home than events in Europe or Iran. Your assertion that you "cannot believe that God (in whose existence [you] believe) looks with indifference" on the evil that men do reminds me of something very similar that Jefferson said.
"can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!"
Jefferson invoked God but only because God was important "in the minds of the people" and invoking God would help "the liberties of a nation be thought secure." But, in fact, he feared man. He feared "a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation" of master and slave.
Two tier justices, driven by leftists critical theories and feelings. It would appear that in Minnesota, as a general matter, Somalis can do what they like in all cases, while to not be in disagreement with this imposed hierarchy will be criminalized. From Nick Shirley’s videos to this case, Minnesota has been conquered - voluntarily.
This is an illustration of the pernicious effects of thinking about speech that is protected or unprotected in terms of mere labels. The prosecutor and the judge mindlessly relied on a mere label ("fighting words") instead of proving or requiring proof that the harm (serious potential to provoke imminent physical violence) was present.
This calls to mind the reason that courts stopped using the "clear and present danger" test. It was for essentially the same reason. Prosecutors and judges used those words as a mere label instead of proving (or requiring proof) that a danger actually was imminent and serious. This is why in Wood v. Georgia in 1962 SCOTUS emphasized that due process of law means much more than judges’ mere “enunciation of a constitutionally acceptable standard” merely purportedly “describing the effect of” someone's “conduct.”
Again, it's worth bearing in mind principles articulated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. “The constitutional protection” (due process of law) “does not” necessarily “turn upon” the “truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.” Sullivan quoting NAACP v. Button. The process of law that is due is determined by public servants punishing or penalizing people for the content of their speech. As SCOTUS emphasized in 2000 in United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., “When” any “Government restricts” any “speech, the Government” always “bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.”
“When” any “Government” restricts any “speech based on its content,” any potential “presumption of constitutionality” must be “reversed. Content-based regulations” (including orders imposing punishment or penalty) “are presumptively invalid, and the Government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.”
In Button, SCOTUS emphasized that prosecutors and judges “cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels." No “regulatory measures” (including any court rule or ruling), “no matter how sophisticated,” can “be employed in purpose or in effect to stifle, penalize, or curb” our “exercise of First Amendment rights.” The following year in Sullivan, SCOTUS unanimously re-emphasized that no “mere labels” can justify “repression of expression.” "The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.” (In 2002 in Virginia v. Black, SCOTUS re-emphasized this principle. Criminal intent must be proved; it cannot be merely presumed from the mere fact that a person burned a cross.) The government must present “proof,” and (in civil cases) it must have “the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.” As SCOTUS re-emphasized in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. in 1986, in civil cases, “the First Amendment mandates a ‘clear and convincing’ standard” of proof of each material fact. In criminal cases, our Constitution requires proof of each material fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s a sleight of hand. They couldn’t prosecute her for using racial slurs, so they found a vague enough law to go after her for something else. If her behavior (minus the slurs) would normally result in prosecution, America would have run out of prisons a long time ago.
100% 👍
Appeal and sue for damages.
Sue whom? The Somali man just made a video. And the courts are immune from suit. Lastly, I don’t see a “deprivation of civil rights” under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. The judge made an error in not immediately dismissing the case when the prosecution rested its case, but as indicated, courts are immune from suit over error.
She was harassed and then convicted of disorderly conduct. Doesn’t she have a right to say words? I’m sure that you are correct but I am struggling to understand what law she broke.
I agree with you 100%.
All of the wrongful conviction cases (financial claims) depend on “exoneration”: (1) there having been evidence at the time that proves the defendant could not have committed the crime and (2) that that evidence was known to the police/prosecutor or would have been known absent failures of routine procedures.
I’m not aware of any financial payouts where the defendant received a settlement because of a change in a point of law, e.g., the famous 1966 SCOTUS case “Miranda v. Arizona.” Miranda was retried excluding his statements to the police, but was convicted again, this time using his jailhouse statements to his girlfriend.
A classic financial settlement fact pattern would be police not submitting DNA evidence for testing and that omission being challenged years later by a competent appellate attorney, whereupon it’s tested and the prisoner’s DNA is a complete mismatch.
So we have 1A rights but absolutely no recourse to justice when those rights are violated, we just have to take it? There is no path to fight this and no one has ever sued and won for this kind of violation?
You misunderstand the limited scope of my reply to Aladdin. He asked about “suing for damages,” which is a civil claim. Shiloh Hendrix has criminal appeal rights regarding her misdemeanor conviction – to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, then to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court. Normally, misdemeanor cases like this would be turned down by both Supreme Courts, but as a 1A case, they would likely hear it. It’s hard to believe her conviction would survive the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
OK, that makes more sense. Most people use "sue" as a general term, but you're using a more legally specific definition.
suing "for damages" always means asking for money
Yes, legally, but people often seem to use it as the catch all term for legal challenges. One of those never ending situations where how people use a term isn't strictly accurate.
Thank you for the explanation John.
At first I thought this must have happened in the UK. She might’ve been jailed there.
They’d have revived the death penalty. They handcuffed Henry Nowak & let him bleed to death based on one person’s lie.
The only good thing out of this whole debacle is getting to read Gigachad Clarence Thomas write a complete repudiation of fighting words in a couple years.
Clarence “burning a cross is a true threat” Thomas? Clarence “disrespecting the flag can be punished” Thomas?
He’s an interesting character, but no free-speech warrior.
Are y'all going to represent her in the appeal?
I mean quite possibly. ACLU defended the Skokie Nazis. The ACLU is not what it was but FIRE is the new ACLU.
Leftist activists inflame me daily but I still must tolerate them and their speech.
And on the other end of things compelled speech is running amok and no court case exists to attempt to prevent it. Either my rights are respected by all parties or I have none. I'm thinking of the baseball players that wrote Bible verses and were fined and suspended. If your company can do to you, you have no rights nor a government that will protect those rights.
Employers can fire you for your speech. The key is they can’t imprison you. Baseball players (and all pro athletes) have contracts spelling out unacceptable actions & language off the field. Employers are not required to continue associating with an individual they consider harmful to the employer’s reputation. Refer to the case of James Damore fired by Google in 2017 for writing an internal memo on Google’s Slack channel questioning DEI, which other employees took public to force Google’s hand to fire Damore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_Ideological_Echo_Chamber
Then what is the point of the Constitution then?.....
The point of the 1st Amendment is to protect you from the government.
If you don’t like your employer, quit. If they don’t like you, they can fire you.
Keep making the staists argument for them, enjoy subjugation.
I’m not making an argument. I’m explaining employment law through examples. Your employer can fire you if it doesn’t like the color of your tie. However, our economy depends on most employers being rational.
Federal employment law prohibits employers from discriminating between employees based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, and genetic information.
ALL other bases (including tie color) are permissible. You may not like it, but those are the facts. This is not an argument – it’s a factual statement.
The Constitution grants no privately held group, company, corporation and not even itself God Given Rights!…the government is instituted to PROTECT those Rights no matter who the offender is. If the government fails to do that, I submit you HAVE NONE because then any Joe blow can run over them including your employer,who has been granted no larger right than me. Your just a statist who prefers to outsource his thinking to authority not granted to anybody under the Constitution. Or is that too free?……
What about employers’ (or the stockholders’ of the employers) right to not be damaged by employees’ public speech or actions? The employer doesn’t have freedom of association?
What about Andy Byron and Kristin Cabot on the KissCam at the Coldplay concert last year, with him hugging her from behind and his hands on her boobs? An obvious affair between a married CEO and his head of HR (the wife of the current head of a 300 year old Boston family). Both of them left the company within a week, in lieu of firing.
After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, hundreds of assholes expressed their joy on SM not just that he was gone, but at the brutality of his death. Dozens were fired from their jobs by employers disgusted by those employees’ newly revealed despicable opinions, attitudes and morals.
Agree they were dispicable, do not agree with firing them over speech, that always comes back around to bite YOU. Yeah, liberty REQUIRES a thick skin.I stand by what I said. It the INDIVIDUALS liberty isn't protected by ALL parties invited, none of us retain ANY!.......what is difficult about this?..the Constitution protects INDIVIDUSLS!....After all, the smallest minority is a minority of ONE!.....
Take your pills grandpa.
That is not a reply! Hmmm, you dont seem that "clever" to me, sonny......
Bob, for the most part, our Constitution doesn't grant rights. For the most part regarding rights the Constitution merely declares rights (including everything in the First Amendment). In that regard, the Constitution is highly analogous to the Declaration of Independence. Independence was declared, not granted, in 1776. The declaration didn't deliver independence. The Declaration of Independence would have meant very little without people fighting for another 8 years (or more, counting the War of 1812). Our Constitution would mean very little without people (like FIRE) fighting to accomplish what it promises.
Just like independence wasn't granted by the Declaration, our rights were not granted by the Constitution. Our rights also aren't given to us by any God. As the Preamble emphasizes, "We the People of the United States" established our own supreme power to declare our own rights when the People did "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The People demanded a bill of rights. That's why the Constitution was amended virtually immediately to add the first 10 amendments.
I think you’ve repeatedly made an error: our rights are not declared by men; they are conferred by God: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” The 9A specifically says we have other rights not listed.
The Bill of Rights does not even declare our rights. It is 9 Amendments that prohibit the government from doing certain things. The 10th says the states get to do everything not specifically allocated to the Federal government.
The 1A constrains the government (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) from restricting the content of speech. This was (and remains) a major issue under the British government, and derivative governments (Canada & Australia.)
Esoterically, this is because the U.S. has a constitution that is superior to all 3 branches and all states, whereas the British Commonwealth governments derive their authority from the King & Parliament, not the People. For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an act of the Canadian Parliament. Since the Parliament is controlled by the majority party at any given time, the People really don’t have much protection when complaining about the majority party’s agenda. Trudeau proved this by imprisoning people who spoke against the Canadian COVID programs. And it’s why the Biden admin’s actions in that same direction were both unconstitutional and illegal.
Yeah, THATS working out really well……
Consider the Tenth Amendment to see the point of the Constitution. That amendment was written to summarize our Constitution. Certain limited "powers" were "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Other "powers" were "prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States." Other "powers" were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." None of that has anything to do with the relative powers of employers and employees except to the extent that state or federal governments are employers and employees of both are U.S. citizens who are (as Article IV and Amendment XIV emphasize) entitled to all the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens.
I do not see a “subject matter” connection between (1) the 10th Amendment (allocating powers between the States and the Federal government) and (2) the supposed prohibition on discretionary employment termination by private employers.
There is no connection. As I said at the conclusion of my comment:
None of that has anything to do with the relative powers of employers and employees except to the extent that state or federal governments are employers and employees of both are U.S. citizens who are (as Article IV and Amendment XIV emphasize) entitled to all the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens.
Welcome to the club everybody brings in but me......I think your thinking is limited....afraid to abandon the familiar for what "might" happen....
Interesting, "privileges and immunities" both are something government grants to me via specific membership, not something I already possess via God,.... I.E., a RIGHT as enshrined, not granted in the Constition. I still maintain the Constitution itself grants no other entity authority over me. But how does the Constitutional, legal framework not produce a cultural one that follows it?....
“I still maintain the Constitution itself grants no other entity authority over me.”
I think you’re overlooking that the American colonies generally followed English common law as it stood in 1776. ECL provided for an elected legislature empowered to pass binding laws that set forth crimes and punishments. The 10A implicitly endorsed this by allocating to the States all powers not addressed in the Constitution.
Exactly where I think we have failed,if our legislative bodies were to create statute UNDER the Constitution, it did a pretty poor job of it by following what existed instead of what COULD be. As a general rule that is where I base my arguments, what we have now is working pretty poorly and to the benifit of the rich and powerful, to whom YOU and folks like you relent, its easy, its the path of least resistance...people are more than happy to,once again, out source their thinking to "what is".....neither of you have answered a single question of mine, thanks.....to be sure, if the final arbiter of the governments actions are THE PEOPLE, where is my liberty not stated?......
Not sure I agree with the absolutist position. Words MEANT to start a fight are not protected - After “Hey I saw your mother died, I sure am glad the bitch is dead”, a punch in the nose is to be expected and a First Amendment prosecution of the puncher for violating expressive conduct would be wrong.
Of course this does not apply to the Shiloh Hendrix case, the aggressor in this case ASKED FOR the words to be repeated with the express PURPOSE of harming the speaker.
This would excuse every schoolyard chest bumping contest turning into violent conduct, no?
Not sure what your point is here
Exactly.
As his comment ‘we’ll see about that’ shows.
He baited her.
He knew he’d be protected and she wouldn’t be.
This is all well said and I do agree. But I do have a question: to what extent was the GiveSendGo campaign supporting her (between 700,000 and 1 million dollars) the week after the incident have any impact on the charges, court decision, or any other aspect of the case? I don’t like the precedent this conviction sets but I do wonder if that publicity (and dollar amount) poisoned the well a bit.
I can’t imagine retaining a lawyer for a case like this would have cost her 700k to one million dollars (a subsequent case likely would). But I have no idea. I’m more just curious if that fundraiser (which was premised on providing safety to her family) affected the judgment of the court.
I mean, for better or worse, she's a pariah in her community at this point, so she should probably get out of dodge.
Anyone who understands the First Amendment is quoting Voltaire here.
She should've just said AIPAC made her do it.
John, you could look much closer to home than events in Europe or Iran. Your assertion that you "cannot believe that God (in whose existence [you] believe) looks with indifference" on the evil that men do reminds me of something very similar that Jefferson said.
"can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!"
Jefferson invoked God but only because God was important "in the minds of the people" and invoking God would help "the liberties of a nation be thought secure." But, in fact, he feared man. He feared "a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation" of master and slave.
Two tier justices, driven by leftists critical theories and feelings. It would appear that in Minnesota, as a general matter, Somalis can do what they like in all cases, while to not be in disagreement with this imposed hierarchy will be criminalized. From Nick Shirley’s videos to this case, Minnesota has been conquered - voluntarily.
And the Blaine amendment exists in 37 states Constitutions, still doesn't make it right.
She chased an autistic child down and called him racist slurs. The First Amendment doesn’t cover that.
"Yesterday, the jury acquitted Hendrix on the count involving the child but convicted her on the count arising from her interaction with Omar."
This is an illustration of the pernicious effects of thinking about speech that is protected or unprotected in terms of mere labels. The prosecutor and the judge mindlessly relied on a mere label ("fighting words") instead of proving or requiring proof that the harm (serious potential to provoke imminent physical violence) was present.
This calls to mind the reason that courts stopped using the "clear and present danger" test. It was for essentially the same reason. Prosecutors and judges used those words as a mere label instead of proving (or requiring proof) that a danger actually was imminent and serious. This is why in Wood v. Georgia in 1962 SCOTUS emphasized that due process of law means much more than judges’ mere “enunciation of a constitutionally acceptable standard” merely purportedly “describing the effect of” someone's “conduct.”
Again, it's worth bearing in mind principles articulated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. “The constitutional protection” (due process of law) “does not” necessarily “turn upon” the “truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.” Sullivan quoting NAACP v. Button. The process of law that is due is determined by public servants punishing or penalizing people for the content of their speech. As SCOTUS emphasized in 2000 in United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., “When” any “Government restricts” any “speech, the Government” always “bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.”
“When” any “Government” restricts any “speech based on its content,” any potential “presumption of constitutionality” must be “reversed. Content-based regulations” (including orders imposing punishment or penalty) “are presumptively invalid, and the Government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.”
In Button, SCOTUS emphasized that prosecutors and judges “cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels." No “regulatory measures” (including any court rule or ruling), “no matter how sophisticated,” can “be employed in purpose or in effect to stifle, penalize, or curb” our “exercise of First Amendment rights.” The following year in Sullivan, SCOTUS unanimously re-emphasized that no “mere labels” can justify “repression of expression.” "The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.” (In 2002 in Virginia v. Black, SCOTUS re-emphasized this principle. Criminal intent must be proved; it cannot be merely presumed from the mere fact that a person burned a cross.) The government must present “proof,” and (in civil cases) it must have “the convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.” As SCOTUS re-emphasized in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. in 1986, in civil cases, “the First Amendment mandates a ‘clear and convincing’ standard” of proof of each material fact. In criminal cases, our Constitution requires proof of each material fact beyond a reasonable doubt.