Teresita wrote:
In article <3FA01CE9.3E3B27A0@concentric.net>, Ken Smith says...Specifically, the Colorado Board of LawExaminers demanded that I undergo an involuntary psychiatric exam,triggered by their obvious disapproval of my expose of Bob Larson(and yes, I *have* the documentation). I objected on constitutionalgrounds -- as this constituted an "indirect restraint" upon my speech Matt Hale is head of the World Church of the Creator, an organization whose religious tenets include teaching whites to regard their own race above others. After being declared "unfit" to practice law by the State Bar, Hale petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to review his case, but this was refused. Matt Hale next petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review of his case. SCOTUS, without comment, refused to review Hale's case.

....thereby proving conclusively that America has no more respect
for the rights of its citizens than Saddam Hussein did Iraq's.

It was patently obvious that Hale -- a neo-Nazi -- was persecuted
by the government for his speech. And a Jew chose to fight for him.
That's right: A JEW!
Why on Earth, Teresita, would a Jew stand in the breach on behalf
of a neo-Nazi? Not because he loved Matt Hale's views. Rather, it
was because he loved the Constitution, and the unique protections it
*used to* offer the now-lowly American citizen.

You don't need to pass laws to protect popular, politically correct
speech. Hence, the First Amendment is there to protect unpopular
speech -- the kind that makes your blood boil. It is the very back-
bone of the "American Experiment." As Justice Brennan observed,

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes
that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a mul-
titude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection.
To many, this is, and will always be, folly; but we have staked
upon it our all.

NY Times, 376 U.S. at 270 (c.o.).

In America's storied past, the right to "free speech" actually meant
something. But now, if you don't say what the powers-that-be want
you to say, they can harass you for your speech and even deny you
the right to earn a livelihood in your chosen profession -- under the
Orwellian guise of "protecting the public."

In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, you could not be a doctor, lawyer, or
local chieftain unless you joined the Ba'athist Party. And in Illinois
or Colorado, the same rule applies: Unless your public views were
in accord with the government's views, they can prevent you from
becoming a lawyer.

Dudes, where's my country?

In article <3FA25319.9F979D98@concentric.net>, Ken Smith says...
Why on Earth, Teresita, would a Jew stand in the breach on behalfof a neo-Nazi? Not because he loved Matt Hale's views. Rather, itwas because he loved the Constitution, and the unique protections it*used to* offer the now-lowly American citizen.

Where were you after Planned Parenthood vs. American Coalition, when a $70
million fine was imposed on pro-lifers by a federal jury in Oregon for simply
publishing names and photographs of abortion doctors on the internet? Probably
hailing the decision as a blow against theists. The liberals have taught us to
move away from a strict interpretation of what the Framers wrote to a paradigm
where the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", and now you can't
shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, libel or slander another in print or
broadcast, print fraudulent or false advertising, incite riots, or threaten the
president with assassination. In this regime, you encounter the "indirect
restraint" of free speech that you allege. When you dance with the devil, you
sometimes get your feet crushed by hooves.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita

Ken Smith wrote:
Teresita wrote:
Matt Hale

A veritable kook.
is head of the World Church of the Creator, an organization whose religious tenets include teaching whites to regard their own race above others.

In other words, Matt Hale does not believe in the inherent equality of all
men, which is a basic tenet of the American legal system. So then Matt Hale
is unAmerican.
After being declared "unfit" to practice law by the State Bar,

Because he IS unfit to practise law in the U.S., if he does not accept the
tenet that all men stand equal before the law.
Hale petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to review his case, but this was refused.

And the Illinois Supreme Court acted correctly.
Matt Hale next petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review of his case. SCOTUS, without comment, refused to review Hale's case.

Because his case didn't deserve any comment.
... thereby proving conclusively that America has no more respect for the rights of its citizens than Saddam Hussein did Iraq's.

Ken has an odd concept of equivalence. It is no wonder that the Examiners'
Board of the Colorado Bar Association wanted him to take a psych exam.
It was patently obvious that Hale -- a neo-Nazi -- was persecuted by the government for his speech.

Nonsense. Hale's views are incompatible with the precepts upon which
American jurisprudence is based.
And a Jew chose to fight for him. That's right: A JEW!

A self-hating Jew.
Why on Earth, Teresita, would a Jew stand in the breach on behalf of a neo-Nazi?

Because he promotes this left-liberal idiocy that there should be absolutely
no restraint upon human conduct.
Not because he loved Matt Hale's views. Rather, it was because he loved the Constitution,

I would have liked to have said here that the Constitution does not support
Matt Hale's views, but alas that hasn't always been true. At one time,
according to the Constitution, a black individual only constituted three
fifths of a person. But all of that has been superceded by the fourteenth
amendment.

Let us also note here that Matt Hale does not love the Consitution, because
his beliefs are counter to its precepts. And because of this, he is
unqualified to be a lawyer.
and the unique protections it *used to* offer the now-lowly American citizen.

And those protections that have been eroded, have been eroded at the hands of
those who share the extreme left-liberal views of Hale's lawyer.
You don't need to pass laws to protect popular, politically correct speech.

Politically correct speech is not generally popular (except perhaps in left-
liberal havens such as universities). And, yes, you DO need laws to promote
political correctness -- such as "hate-speech" and "hate-crime" laws.
Hence, the First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech -- the kind that makes your blood boil.

But not speech that calls for the overthrow of the nation.
It is the very backbone of the "American Experiment." As Justice Brennan

A man who tried to make the Constitution say what he wanted it to say, at the
expense of what the framers intended it to mean.
observed,
The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and will always be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.

Hand said this, not Brennan, who is only quoting him.
NY Times, 376 U.S. at 270 (c.o.).

This is Times v Sullivan, a case touching upon the Civil Movement. On
Tuesday, 29 March, 1960, the New York Times published a full-page fund-
raising ad. One of the city commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama, L.B.
Sullivan sued, contending that certain passages of the text of the ad were
defamatory to him, as he was the commissioner in charge of police in
Montgomery. The passages in question are:

In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang "My Country, 'Tis of Thee"
on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school,
and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the
Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested
to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall was
padlocked in an attempted to starve them into submission.

[...]

Again and again the Southern violators have answered Dr. King's
peaceful protests with intimidation and violence. They have bombed
his home almost killing his wife and child. They have assaulted his
person. They have arrested him seven times--for "speeding,"
"loitering" and similar "offenses." And now they have charged him
with "perjury"--a felony under which they could imprison him for ten
years.

There are some misstatements of fact in the above passages. First of all,
the students sang "The Star-Spangled Banner", not "My Country 'Tis of Thee"
(though this is apparently an inocuous error). But "their leaders" weren't
expelled for singing on the State Capitol steps, but rather because they
conducted a sit-in at a lunch counter (presumably "whites only" and they were
black). And while police were sent to the school, it wasn't "ringed" by
"truckloads" of cops. And the second quoted paragraph seems to insinuate
that the "southern violators" were the police.

Lower courts found for Sullivan, but the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously
overturned the verdict in 1964, with Justice Brennan writing the majority
opinion, saying basically that newspapers may knowingly publish lies, because
the government shouldn't be about the business of judging truth. So nearly
40 years hence now, we have a press that has lost virtually all credibility.
That is the legacy of Justice Brennan.
In America's storied past, the right to "free speech" actually meant something.

Before Times v Sullivan.
But now, if you don't say what the powers-that-be want you to say, they can harass you for your speech and even deny you the right to earn a livelihood in your chosen profession -- under the Orwellian guise of "protecting the public."

How? I have said many things that the "powers-that-be" might not like, but
they haven't harassed me in any way.
In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, you could not be a doctor, lawyer, or local chieftain unless you joined the Ba'athist Party. And in Illinois or Colorado, the same rule applies: Unless your public views were in accord with the government's views, they can prevent you from becoming a lawyer.

Nonsense. I'll bet that there are many lawyers in Illinois and in Colorado
who say things that powerful government leaders do not like. Moreover, I
doubt that I can find ANY such leaders in Colorado who would stand up for Bob
Larson.
Dudes, where's my country?

Perhaps if you got your head screwed on, you might be able to find it.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Teresita wrote:
In article <3FA25319.9F979D98@concentric.net>, Ken Smith says... Why on Earth, Teresita, would a Jew stand in the breach on behalfof a neo-Nazi? Not because he loved Matt Hale's views. Rather, itwas because he loved the Constitution, and the unique protections it*used to* offer the now-lowly American citizen. Where were you after Planned Parenthood vs. American Coalition, when a $70 million fine was imposed on pro-lifers by a federal jury in Oregon for simply publishing names and photographs of abortion doctors on the internet? Probably hailing the decision as a blow against theists.

I wasn't a party to the case, and wasn't invited to file an amicus. And
I never said I was entirely comfortable with that decision.
The liberals have taught us to move away from a strict interpretation of what the Framers wrote to a paradigm where the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", and now you can't shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,

I don't think you were ever permitted to do so. Shouting "Fire" in a
crowded theater is like firing a gun into a crowd -- you can guarantee
that serious injury will result.
libel or slander another in print or broadcast,

Sure, you can. But as it is said in the Colorado Constitution, you are
responsible for your statements. Libel injures an individual, not society
as a whole. And the remedy is in tort. If I wanted to accuse Kaldis of
being the Hillside Strangler, I could do so -- but I would also be liable
to him in tort. See, e.g., Falwell's case against Hustler.
print fraudulent or false advertising,

Congress has been given power to regulate commerce, and the First
Amendment must be interpreted in concert with that.
incite riots, or threaten the president with assassination.

As a passionate civil libertarian, I can't say that I agree with all of the
Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. You'll note that I've quoted
from Cohen v. CA, and denounced the majority decision in Anastaplo.
We can discuss cases like Gitlow, Whitney, and Brandenburg v. Ohio,
and you will find that I agree with Justice Holmes that every idea is an
incitement.
In this regime, you encounter the "indirect restraint" of free speech that you allege.

You can debate this with Jon Beaver until the cows come home -- I
feel quite certain he will oblige. :)

In the first week of law school, everyone is assaulted with the hypo-
thetical called the case of the Speluncean Explorers. The purpose is
to demonstrate that at the extremes, no uniform view of law is always
just and always consistent.
When you dance with the devil, you sometimes get your feet crushed by hooves.

And that will invariably happen, no matter which view of law you
adopt.

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Teresita wrote: Matt Hale A veritable kook.

Absolutely. TeddiBeer Kaldis-class.
is head of the World Church of the Creator, an organization whose religious tenets include teaching whites to regard their own race above others. In other words, Matt Hale does not believe in the inherent equality of all men, which is a basic tenet of the American legal system. So then Matt Hale is unAmerican.

The same could be said for Christian religious kooks who think that
they and they alone have the right to shove their religious views down
the throats of impressionable children. The same could also be said
for the cranks on the Illinois Bar who believe that free speech like the
speech Hale engages in is not protected by the Constitution. Both are
unAmerican.

In a nation of dissenters, we used to respect the right to dissent.
After being declared "unfit" to practice law by the State Bar, Because he IS unfit to practise law in the U.S., if he does not accept the tenet that all men stand equal before the law.

Why? The founding Fathers regarded certain men as property, if for
no other reason than the color of their skin. Were they unfit to practice
law in the U.S.?!?
Hale petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to review his case, but this was refused. And the Illinois Supreme Court acted correctly.

If you believe that he can be punished for his speech, and that the First
Amendment is thus null and void.
Matt Hale next petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review of his case. SCOTUS, without comment, refused to review Hale's case. Because his case didn't deserve any comment. ... thereby proving conclusively that America has no more respect for the rights of its citizens than Saddam Hussein did Iraq's. Ken has an odd concept of equivalence.

It's a matter of general principle. What speech is *too* radical for be
protected? William Wilberforce was denounced as a nut. So was Dr.
Martin Luther King. One generation's heresy is the next one's orthodoxy.
I have faith in free markets -- and in particular, the free marketplace of
ideas. Why don't you?
It is no wonder that the Examiners' Board of the Colorado Bar Association wanted him to take a psych exam.

Yup. My views are too radical -- just like that of George Anastaplo,
Dr. King, Wilberforce, and Martin Luther. I'd upset the applecart, and
challenge the established orthodoxy. Every idea is an incitement.

Can't have that, now can we?
It was patently obvious that Hale -- a neo-Nazi -- was persecuted by the government for his speech. Nonsense. Hale's views are incompatible with the precepts upon which American jurisprudence is based.

They may be, but that shouldn't stop him from advocating them in the
free marketplace of ideas. A century ago, Hale's radical views were in
the mainstream!
And a Jew chose to fight for him. That's right: A JEW! A self-hating Jew.

I didn't perceive that -- and I've spoken with him.
Why on Earth, Teresita, would a Jew stand in the breach on behalf of a neo-Nazi? Because he promotes this left-liberal idiocy that there should be absolutely no restraint upon human conduct.

You mean, like Saddam Hussein's?
Not because he loved Matt Hale's views. Rather, it was because he loved the Constitution, I would have liked to have said here that the Constitution does not support Matt Hale's views, but alas that hasn't always been true. At one time, according to the Constitution, a black individual only constituted three fifths of a person. But all of that has been superceded by the fourteenth amendment. Let us also note here that Matt Hale does not love the Consitution, because his beliefs are counter to its precepts. And because of this, he is unqualified to be a lawyer.

But we're not talking about Hale. We're talking about his lawyer.

IIRC, Hale preached racial purity and separation. It was the view of
the Constitution -- as duly interpreted by SCOTUS -- at one time. It
was also the view of most of the Founding Fathers (with the apparent
exception of Jefferson). See, e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson.
and the unique protections it *used to* offer the now-lowly American citizen. And those protections that have been eroded, have been eroded at the hands of those who share the extreme left-liberal views of Hale's lawyer.

You mean, like the Democrat-nominated Colorado Supreme Court?
Radical LIBBBB-UHH-RULLLS, all! :)
You don't need to pass laws to protect popular, politically correct speech. Politically correct speech is not generally popular (except perhaps in left- liberal havens such as universities). And, yes, you DO need laws to promote political correctness -- such as "hate-speech" and "hate-crime" laws.

No one has ever been prosecuted for saying what the vast majority
of the people believe. The laws you cite are intended to discourage
the kind of speech -- unpopular speech! -- the government wants to
prohibit. You seem to think this is a good thing.
Hence, the First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech -- the kind that makes your blood boil. But not speech that calls for the overthrow of the nation.

Why not? The Founding Fathers did precisely that -- they overthrew
the government! And wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that said that a little
revolution every now and again was a good thing?

From what I recall, Hale never advocated the violent overthrowing of
the government; rather, he advocated the advance of his group's views
within the confines of our legal system. If we use the 'violent overthrow'
test employed in Anastaplo, Hale should be in like Flynn....
It is the very backbone of the "American Experiment." As Justice Brennan A man who tried to make the Constitution say what he wanted it to say, at the expense of what the framers intended it to mean.

IIRC, he was such a staunch defender of the First Amendment that
even James Dobson and Pat Robertson wanted to enact one of his
decisions as law, in direct opposition to the drivel of Herr Rehnquist
and Signore Scalia.
observed, The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and will always be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all. Hand said this, not Brennan, who is only quoting him.

And your point is? That Learned Hand was an illiterate radical?
NY Times, 376 U.S. at 270 (c.o.). This is Times v Sullivan, a case touching upon the Civil Movement. On Tuesday, 29 March, 1960, the New York Times published a full-page fund- raising ad. One of the city commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan sued, contending that certain passages of the text of the ad were defamatory to him, as he was the commissioner in charge of police in Montgomery. The passages in question are: In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempted to starve them into submission. [...] Again and again the Southern violators have answered Dr. King's peaceful protests with intimidation and violence. They have bombed his home almost killing his wife and child. They have assaulted his person. They have arrested him seven times--for "speeding," "loitering" and similar "offenses." And now they have charged him with "perjury"--a felony under which they could imprison him for ten years. There are some misstatements of fact in the above passages. First of all, the students sang "The Star-Spangled Banner", not "My Country 'Tis of Thee" (though this is apparently an inocuous error). But "their leaders" weren't expelled for singing on the State Capitol steps, but rather because they conducted a sit-in at a lunch counter (presumably "whites only" and they were black). And while police were sent to the school, it wasn't "ringed" by "truckloads" of cops. And the second quoted paragraph seems to insinuate that the "southern violators" were the police. Lower courts found for Sullivan, but the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the verdict in 1964, with Justice Brennan writing the majority opinion, saying basically that newspapers may knowingly publish lies, because the government shouldn't be about the business of judging truth. So nearly 40 years hence now, we have a press that has lost virtually all credibility. That is the legacy of Justice Brennan.

As opposed to the system now in place in China, where the govern-
ment decides what the people may or may not hear. The marketplace
decides what is true, and the Naional Enquirer is more reliable than the
Bible. :)
In America's storied past, the right to "free speech" actually meant something. Before Times v Sullivan. But now, if you don't say what the powers-that-be want you to say, they can harass you for your speech and even deny you the right to earn a livelihood in your chosen profession -- under the Orwellian guise of "protecting the public." How? I have said many things that the "powers-that-be" might not like, but they haven't harassed me in any way.

And you haven't been in a position for them to get at you. If you did,
they would.
In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, you could not be a doctor, lawyer, or local chieftain unless you joined the Ba'athist Party. And in Illinois or Colorado, the same rule applies: Unless your public views were in accord with the government's views, they can prevent you from becoming a lawyer. Nonsense. I'll bet that there are many lawyers in Illinois and in Colorado who say things that powerful government leaders do not like. Moreover, I doubt that I can find ANY such leaders in Colorado who would stand up for Bob Larson.

It all depends on what the view of the bureaucrat du jour is. If
he's a dirty heathen, Christians are screwed. If he's a Christian,
heathen are screwed. Unfettered government discretion threatens
constitutional democracy.
Dudes, where's my country? Perhaps if you got your head screwed on, you might be able to find it.

Just to the right of Iran....

In article <3FA2AA95.186B14E0@concentric.net>, Ken Smith says...
It's a matter of general principle. What speech is *too* radical for beprotected? William Wilberforce was denounced as a nut. So was Dr.Martin Luther King. One generation's heresy is the next one's orthodoxy.I have faith in free markets -- and in particular, the free marketplace ofideas. Why don't you?
In the free marketplace of ideas, the price for acceptance to the Colorado Bar
Assn. was a little psych test. You thought that bid was too high and didn't
accept it. Nothing personal, just business.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita

In article <3FA2AA95.186B14E0@concentric.net>, Ken Smith says...
From what I recall, Hale never advocated the violent overthrowing ofthe government; rather, he advocated the advance of his group's viewswithin the confines of our legal system.

In order to advance his group's views, he would have to overthrow the
protections of the 14th Amendment ("All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens"). This
would therefore be outside the confines of our legal system.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita