Category: First Amendment rights

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture

The King’s Airball

LeBron James, Hong Kong, China, freedom, free speech,

“The thing is, LeBron, we’ve come to expect more of you,” writes Dan Wolken in USA Today, taking the National Basketball Association star to task for his comments taking Houston Rockets executive Daryl Morey to task for having tweeted “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong.”

Morey’s pro-protester statement had caused a backlash against the NBA from the totalitarian Chinese government, threatening the league’s — and LeBron’s — continued access to China’s large and lucrative market of basketball fans.

LeBron James told reporters that Morey was “misinformed, not really educated” about the Hong Kong situation, before adding, witlessly, “I have no idea but that’s just my belief.”

“Yes, we all do have freedom of speech,” acknowledged James, “but at times there are ramifications for the negative that can happen, when you’re not thinking of others and you’re only thinking about yourself.”

Ramifications for whom? The people of Hong Kong yearning for freedom and democracy? Or was Mr. James . . . only thinking about himself?

Criticism came fast and furious. “@KingJames — you’re parroting communist propaganda. China is running torture camps and you know it,” tweeted Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse. 

“Let me clear up the confusion,” responded the King of Basketball, if not public relations. “I do not believe there was any consideration for the consequences and ramifications of the tweet.  I’m not discussing the substance.”

And then LeBron further clarified, “My team and this league just went through a difficult week. I think people need to understand what a tweet or statement can do to others. . . . Could have waited a week to send it.”

Hong Kong protesters are now burning LeBron’s No. 23 jersey. 

Apparently, their freedom can’t wait a week.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

LeBron James, Hong Kong, China, freedom, free speech,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
First Amendment rights Popular

Against Spying on American Journalists

antiwar, anti war, Justin Raimondo,

Does the Federal Bureau of Investigation have a file on you?

Does it — or some other agency — have an active file on you?

If so, does it have good reason for such an investigation?

Well, refine that last question a bit: does the FBI have a good reason under the principles of a democratic republic, abiding by the limits set by the rights listed (and not listed) in the Constitution?

Eight years ago, the folks at AntiWar.com learned that they had been subject to FISA snooping and multiple “threat assessment” memos of the FBI. Eric Garris, founder, managing editor, and webmaster of the anti-war site sued, under the Freedom of Information Act, for discovery, and, under the 1974 Privacy Act, to have the memos expunged. On September 11, the court instructed the bureau to expunge one of them, mainly because no crime was under investigation.

You can read a good account of the story at The American Conservative, by Kelly Beaucar Vlahos. It is not a simple story. But the gist is that a journalistic enterprise was targeted for a spy operation because the American Deep State disagreed with — or just plain feared — the journalists’ policy of opposing never-ending war.

Never-ending war being, of course, the health of the ever-expanding state.

This may not unreasonably remind you of the Obama Era suppression of Tea Party activism via the Internal Revenue Service’s discriminatory doling out 501(c)3 statuses. But the FBI is even more ominous, as Angela Keaton, Director of Operations, acknowledged: “donors became scared.”

That is all the evidence we need to recognize how dangerous Deep State spying can be to the freedoms — political and personal — of Americans.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

antiwar, anti war, Justin Raimondo,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture

Ngo Go Zone

Last week, photojournalist Andy Ngo was attacked on the streets of Portland, Oregon, while video-recording a Patriot Prayer march and its Antifa opposition.

As they attacked, one malefactor can be heard screaming, “F**k you, Andy!” Another cried, “F**king owned bitch.”

It was personal. They knew Mr. Ngo, who had been covering Antifa and other far-left activists rioting in Portland for several years.

Ngo’s new GoPro camera was stolen, he was hit on the head, had eggs and milkshakes thrown at him, and shot with silly string. The aim, apparently, was to humiliate and hurt and incapacitate.

Aside from the Antifa terrorists’ personal sense of aggrievement, there is that odd element where the putative “protesters” just do not want to be recorded. Which, after all, is the whole point of actual protest.

Odder yet, while Antifa is allegedly for equality and inclusion, the faces of the arrested malefactors appear largely white, and from what we know in the past, the black-clad, hooded-or-masked mob is mostly made up of white, twenty-something men. 

A white mob attacking a gay Asian sure seems racist and homophobic.

So maybe there is a bit of truth to the notion that Antifa is mainly a bunch of guys unleashing their lust for violence and mayhem. “Anti-fascism” is just a not very plausible excuse. 

But, significantly, it is one that major media continue to make for the group. And many in the media go further, apparently seeking to excuse Antifa by labelling Ngo as a “conservative” (!) and a “provocateur.”

There is no excuse for Antifa — or its apologists.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom local leaders

Deep Show-Me State

Ron Calzone, Missouri, free speech, lobbying, 1st Amendment,

Worried about the Deep State undermining democracy in Washington? What about the Deep State in Missouri?

Today, Ron Calzone will sit in a St. Louis courtroom with his wife, Anne, intently listening to arguments in his case, Calzone v. Missouri Ethics Commission, before the entire Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

In what sort of evil corruption has Mr. Calzone been engaged? 

Good citizenship. 

Talk about an open-and-shut case! For zero pay, Calzone and others — organized through Missouri First — track legislation and communicate their viewpoints to their state representatives, urging legislators to follow a constitutional, limited government philosophy. The group gives no gifts to legislators, only their opinions, and spends no money. Doesn’t even have a bank account.

This is the sort of wholesome citizen participation envisioned in civics textbooks. But politicians see engaged citizens, like Ron, as pests, infesting their capitols. 

In 2014, angered by the grassroots input Calzone had generated, two state legislators convinced the Missouri Society of Governmental Consultants (the state’s “lobbyist guild”) to file an ethics complaint against Ron, demanding he register as a lobbyist. At the measly cost of $10 a year.

Calzone can afford the Hamilton, but refused, on principle, to pay it or to register as a lobbyist. Thankfully, great lawyers at the Freedom Center of Missouri and the Institute for Free Speech have come to his defense.

Laws regulating lobbyists have been enacted to check the influence of rich, powerful special interests. Or so the powerful interests tell us.

Instead, politicians and bureaucrats are twisting the law, trying to block grassroots citizens.

It is time to deep six Deep States.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Ron Calzone, Missouri, free speech, lobbying, 1st Amendment,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
Accountability First Amendment rights local leaders

Insiders Strike Back

It costs time, not money.

Ron Calzone and others read and consider legislation on their own dime. Calzone’s all-volunteer Missouri First group, which analyzes legislation filed in Jefferson City from a constitutional, pro-liberty perspective, doesn’t even have a bank account.

A small businessman outside of Rolla, Calzone devotes a great deal of time and energy during the legislative session, traveling to the capitol to speak face to face with Show-Me State public servants.

For some reason, establishment politicians and bureaucrats have generally failed to express gratitude. 

Back in 2015, the head of Missouri’s “lobbyist guild” filed a complaint, at the urging of two powerful legislators, alleging that Ron Calzone should have to register as a lobbyist. Meaning a $10 fee and lots of paperwork about the money neither he nor his group spends. 

“Average citizens have acted in harmony to stop hundreds of millions of dollars worth of graft that would have otherwise benefited the people who hire herds of professional lobbyists,” he responded at the time. “No doubt, it’s hard for those lobbyists to explain how average men and women can, with no budget and with no palm greasing, beat them so often!”

With the assistance of the Freedom Center of Missouri, a wonderful public interest litigator, and the Institute for Free Speech, the national leader in protecting political speech, Mr. Calzone has stood tall against the Missouri Ethics Commission. 

Last week, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a 2-1 decision against him, agreeing to have all the circuit’s judges weigh in on the case. 

In a free society, citizens must not be required to register and pay a fee in order to speak to legislators.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Further reading:

“Lobbyists, legislators aim to quash political activist’s free speech” — St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Calzone v. Missouri Ethics Commission — Institute for Free Speech

“Show-Me Tyranny” — Paul Jacob, Townhall

“Undefeated” — Paul Jacob, Common Sense

“Show-Me Human Rights” — Paul Jacob, Townhall

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

First Things First

Surely there’s something good in the first legislation put forth by the brand-new Democratic House majority — though nothing jumps to mind. 

The 571-page smorgasbord bill “addresses voting rights, corruption, gerrymandering and campaign finance reform,” writes Thomas Edsall in The New York Times, “as well as the creation of a Select Committee on the Climate Crisis — a first step toward a ‘Green New Deal.’” 

H.R. 1 would mandate that states adopt automatic voter registration, a step too far. It establishes a system of public subsidies for candidates running for Congress, with taxpayers forking over a six-to-one match on donations of $200 or less. 

The legislation also empowers* the Federal Election Commission, including by ending its supposedly “neutral” composition, i.e. an equal number of Democrat and Republican commissioners. This would either allow the FEC to be more “decisive” or unleash the dogs of partisan political witch hunts . . . depending on the case and/or your politics.**

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.), the lead sponsor of the legislation, bill it as the best way “to rescue our broken democracy.” 

“It should be called the Democrat Politician Protection Act,” argues Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Washington Post. 

David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, tells NPR, “A lot of [H.R.1] looks to be unconstitutional.”

No problem, for one provision calls for a constitutional amendment to partially repeal the First Amendment, so to authorize Congress to regulate campaign spending and speech.

Remember: the First Amendment is a single sentence, a mere 45 words.

Succinct and effective.

The former does not apply to this new bill, and the latter, I hope, does not apply to this new Congress.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Let’s not give greater power to the FEC, which, according to a federal judge, “acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law” in the 2016 election.

** Of course, for Ross Perot in the 1990s or Libertarians, Greens and independents today, that “bipartisan” make-up isn’t neutral but stacked like a Star Chamber

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Common Sense First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture

Ideas, Online and Ongoing … with Help

Benjamin Franklin, We must all hang together, quote

In recent years there has been a great burgeoning of public debate about ideas. Politics. Ethics. UFOs. You name it.

This “burgeoning” has mostly taken place online.

Some people are so good at it that they have made their whole livings at it, parlaying advertisements and donations into successful careers.

But this has not gone unnoticed.

They are under attack.

A cabal of highly connected financial and Internet platform professionals have coordinated their attention against Alex Jones, “Sargon of Akkad,” and others. Patreon is the latest to get involved, having ousted Lauren Southern off the company’s donation intermediary service, and now the aforementioned Sargon (Carl Benjamin, an Englishman). And behind all this there lurks the shadowy decisions and machinations of PayPal and Mastercard.

I have covered some of this in the past, here at Common Sense. But too much of it has passed by, as if in my peripheral vision. I know these de-platformings have taken place, however, and am somewhat alarmed. 

Not for myself, so much, as my main gig is political activism: helping citizens place ballot measures before voters through Liberty Initiative Fund and protecting the ballot initiative process with Citizens in Charge Foundation. Common Sense was not conceived to be a profit center, but a herald, a communication platform.

Still, like everything, the program does cost money and must prove its worth. Which is why I cherish my many donors to Common Sense. Thank you. You really do help keep the Common Sense coming — after nearly 20 years!

Something big is brewing. In our culture. In our country. Across the globe. Free speech is under attack. Corruption is rampant at all levels of government. Socialism seems on the march. 

From assisting the police camera ballot measure that passed in Ferguson, Missouri, to last November’s ballot initiative on “citizen only voting” that prevailed in North Dakota, Liberty Initiative Fund knows that real change can better come from the grassroots and the ballot box than from the halls of Congress in Washington.

Those of us who cherish individual freedom must work together to change laws and policies. We have to hang together — or, as Ben Franklin reminded, “most assuredly we will all hang separately.” 

How long will we be able to speak out politically?

I do not know.

But here is something we do know for sure. It is the last day of the year. If you have been planning on making a charitable donation for the cause of limited and accountable government, freedom of speech and press and association, this site, “Common Sense with Paul Jacob,” gratefully accepts donations . . . and could not carry on without the help of “people like you.”

By which I mean patriots. Thoughtful people concerned about the future.

And donations to Common Sense are fully tax deductible!

Please help us in this important work. Support us with dollars if you can. And keep forwarding my daily commentary, telling friends, and taking a stand for FREEDOM.

This is Common Sense. Common effort is the key. Oh, and I’m Paul Jacob.


See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture

Riddle Us That

thought crime, blacklist, pc culture

“Riddle me this,” William Rainford tweeted during the big national #MeToo civil war over the Senate’s confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “Why would the accuser of Kavanaugh take a polygraph, paid for by someone else and administered by private investigator in early August, if she wanted to remain anonymous and had no intention of reporting the alleged assault?”

Dr. Rainford, Dean of the National Catholic School of Social Service at the Catholic University of America, was on a roll.

“Swetnick is 55 y/o. Kavanaugh is 52 y/o,” began a now-removed tweet about another accuser. “Since when do senior girls hang with freshmen boys? If it happened when Kavanaugh was a senior, Swetnick was an adult drinking with&by her admission, having sex with underage boys. In another universe, he would be victim & she the perp!”

Interesting questions. But for students at his university, enraging. Some were angered enough to walk out of class and demand his resignation.

Rainford was suspended and last week resigned as Dean.

Back in September, Will Rainford profusely expressed his contrition in a Cultural Revolution-style statement: “My tweet suggested that [Julie Swetnick] was not a victim of sexual assault. I offer no excuse. It was impulsive and thoughtless and I apologize.”

Strange, then, that media coverage of this case fails to even mention that Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, have now been referred to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution for making allegedly false statements to Congress.

Swetnick and Avenatti can, however, expect to receive better treatment than an administrator in an establishment of higher education who dares ask unpopular questions that trigger progressives.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

N.B. This edition of Common Sense is condensed from last weekend’s Townhall column by Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

 

Categories
First Amendment rights too much government

Burning Isn’t the Only Way to Attack Books

copyright, Sysyphus, censorship, books, law, folly

The U.S. Copyright Office is enforcing an unjust and destructive law merely because it is there.

Selectively enforcing.

Valancourt Books prints books on demand. It keeps no stocks of books in a warehouse in between orders. Even so, the Copyright Office is demanding to be supplied with physical copies of each of the 400+ books in Valancourt’s catalog.

Failure to comply means crippling fines.

Why the harassment?

Well, once upon a time the Copyright Office required publishers to submit physical copies of books in order to receive copyrights for them. Yet the work of authors is now automatically copyrighted as soon as they create it.

Of course, the government doesn’t demand printed copies of their titles from every small publisher in the country. The Copyright Office just happens to have noticed and targeted Valancourt Books.

The Institute for Justice, which is representing the publisher in court, argues that this requirement unconstitutionally forces people to give up property without compensation, violating the takings clause of the First Amendment.

IJ also argues that the law violates the right of freedom of speech protected by that amendment. “People have a right to speak and to publish without notifying the government that they are doing so or incurring significant expenses,” IJ’s Jeffrey Redfern concludes.

“Because it’s there” may be a good reason to climb a mountain. It is a very poor reason to use an old — and outdated — law to destroy the livelihood of innocent people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights judiciary

Church Not Forced to Encourage Sin

compelled speech, censorship, force,

In Hawaii, those who would compel others to promote abortion have suffered a well-deserved setback.

A U.S. District Court tossed a law requiring pregnancy centers to post ads for abortion clinics. Among the centers that would have been affected was one run by a church opposed to abortion. Of course, whether we’re religious or non-religious, we have the same rights. 

The president of National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA), Thomas Glessner, hails the decision as a “major victory for free speech and freedom of religion.” For its reasoning, the district court relied on a Supreme Court decision, NIFLA v. Becerra.

“In NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court affirmed that we don’t force people to say things they don’t believe,” says Kevin Theriot, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom who argued that case before the Supreme Court. Thus, “the district court was correct to permanently halt Hawaii’s enforcement of Act 200’s compelled speech requirement.”

You shouldn’t be forced in any way to abet any conduct that you regard as morally wrong — not if the rest of us respect your rights as a moral agent. And it is worth remembering that a lot of people have moral qualms about all sorts of issues, and that many of the people running Hawaii’s non-church-sponsored centers doubtless also oppose abortion.

Obvious? To you and me, maybe. But some people disagree. They appear eager to compel others to join their various causes. 

The noble cause of leaving other people alone isn’t on the list.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing