Truth and progress can be easily defeated by lies and disinformation. Freedom of speech allows for both.
Many humans struggle with critical thinking and when overwhelmed by dark free speech they can do terrible things.
Which is what is happening now in America.
While I know these students didn't do anything wrong millions actually believe they are terrorists.
None actually look for the evidence. Or demand it. They trust liars and the what the liars say.
Millions believe anyone with a tattoo from Central America is a murderer in a gang that deserves to go to a prison. No trial necessary. We have sent innocent people to that prison. Then many in the oval office flat out lied about it.
The issue is.
How do honest humans defeat dark free speech?
We know once someone believes a lie and has an emotional connection they can not change their mind.
We know to not repeat such lies even when showing they are false. Yet the press does so constantly to the detriment of society.
Many are afraid to stand up to the liars in real time. To actually call them liars.
We don't hold such liars accountable. Not legally. Not even morally.
We do need free speech but we may lose that right because we allowed someone that has no regard for the truth to use his free speech to destroy our Constitution and laws.
Now he is taking away the free speech rights of students, colleges, lawyers and law firms.
Who's next?
We need millions to wake up and stand up. Quickly.
Pendulum swings too far one way, it will do the same when swinging the other way.
The Biden supporters were very neo-Nazi in their persecution of anyone who didn't think the way they did.
Now, the Trump supporters are coming hard after those who suppressed MAGA for 4 years.
Coase's Theorem: A corollary is that social equity can measure the substantive due process of procedural due process. The math works out that the golden rule is social equity, and "do as I say, not as I do" is forcing social efficiency at the expense of social equity.
Coase showed this is possible, but it is not a stable equilibrium, because the public will react, sometimes violently. People do not like to bribe someone to not abuse them (opportunity costs to the abuser of not accepting the bribes will induce social efficiency).
So, why explain all this? Because it is SCOTUS that turned the Bill of Rights into the Bill of Privileges and Immunity. That is why the pendulum swings are so pronounced.
John Marshall assumed what he was trying to prove in Marbury v Madison (1803), so judicial review is not an implied power. Only a tautology can be decided as to constitutionality, because that is restating the constitution. Each time judicial review is applied, SCOTUS replaces constitutional law with case law. Each time a judge claims personal jurisdiction, then decides whether they have subject matter jurisdiction and they are wrong, their actions are ex post facto law and that is not constitutional.
Framers didn't want an independent judiciary.
They wanted the judiciary to feel uniform pressure from the public, not high pressure from just a few wealthy and/or powerful individuals. That is what "serving while in good behavior" is intended to mean, as good behavior in the late 1700s was pious and 24/7, so any citizen could report a judge for not being in good behavior.
The corollary mentioned above, which I proved 4 years ago, will allow constitutional due process to be put on software, and AI will make the software very user-friendly.
Then you won't have to post about your rights being under siege.
Rights are exogenously determined, and so all SCOTUS opinions should only reference the right(s) involved, never reference any previous opinions, which assumes what it is trying to prove.
It can be thought of as 'reduced-form equations' such that privileges, immunity, and other outcomes must be decided in terms of the exogenous variables. This allows the exogenous variables to help define the feasible regions for government behavior.
Example: Note that the 16th Amendment doesn't specify how much income tax.
Is is, therefore, possible that Congress could vote to have everyone give all income to the government, then reallocate the income under yet another misapplication of the 2nd Welfare Theorem of Economics.
However, rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would preclude the "benevolent dictator model ' also known as the social planner model.
Additionally, the 5th amendment prevents the current rates of income tax, as the government is seizing property without just compensation, because the typical taxpayer is not getting very much in return for the money extorted from them.
While I agree completely with your thesis, I wonder why you did not mention the fate of Socrates in Athens. I know that you are focusing on non-citizens in the context of free speech but it was a pretty glaring omission. That said, I fully support your mission of keeping the issue of free speech front and center in a society that does not seem to realize where suppression of unfavored speech or even outright lies can lead.
Truth and progress can be easily defeated by lies and disinformation. Freedom of speech allows for both.
Many humans struggle with critical thinking and when overwhelmed by dark free speech they can do terrible things.
Which is what is happening now in America.
While I know these students didn't do anything wrong millions actually believe they are terrorists.
None actually look for the evidence. Or demand it. They trust liars and the what the liars say.
Millions believe anyone with a tattoo from Central America is a murderer in a gang that deserves to go to a prison. No trial necessary. We have sent innocent people to that prison. Then many in the oval office flat out lied about it.
The issue is.
How do honest humans defeat dark free speech?
We know once someone believes a lie and has an emotional connection they can not change their mind.
We know to not repeat such lies even when showing they are false. Yet the press does so constantly to the detriment of society.
Many are afraid to stand up to the liars in real time. To actually call them liars.
We don't hold such liars accountable. Not legally. Not even morally.
We do need free speech but we may lose that right because we allowed someone that has no regard for the truth to use his free speech to destroy our Constitution and laws.
Now he is taking away the free speech rights of students, colleges, lawyers and law firms.
Who's next?
We need millions to wake up and stand up. Quickly.
Pendulum swings too far one way, it will do the same when swinging the other way.
The Biden supporters were very neo-Nazi in their persecution of anyone who didn't think the way they did.
Now, the Trump supporters are coming hard after those who suppressed MAGA for 4 years.
Coase's Theorem: A corollary is that social equity can measure the substantive due process of procedural due process. The math works out that the golden rule is social equity, and "do as I say, not as I do" is forcing social efficiency at the expense of social equity.
Coase showed this is possible, but it is not a stable equilibrium, because the public will react, sometimes violently. People do not like to bribe someone to not abuse them (opportunity costs to the abuser of not accepting the bribes will induce social efficiency).
So, why explain all this? Because it is SCOTUS that turned the Bill of Rights into the Bill of Privileges and Immunity. That is why the pendulum swings are so pronounced.
John Marshall assumed what he was trying to prove in Marbury v Madison (1803), so judicial review is not an implied power. Only a tautology can be decided as to constitutionality, because that is restating the constitution. Each time judicial review is applied, SCOTUS replaces constitutional law with case law. Each time a judge claims personal jurisdiction, then decides whether they have subject matter jurisdiction and they are wrong, their actions are ex post facto law and that is not constitutional.
Framers didn't want an independent judiciary.
They wanted the judiciary to feel uniform pressure from the public, not high pressure from just a few wealthy and/or powerful individuals. That is what "serving while in good behavior" is intended to mean, as good behavior in the late 1700s was pious and 24/7, so any citizen could report a judge for not being in good behavior.
The corollary mentioned above, which I proved 4 years ago, will allow constitutional due process to be put on software, and AI will make the software very user-friendly.
Then you won't have to post about your rights being under siege.
Rights are exogenously determined, and so all SCOTUS opinions should only reference the right(s) involved, never reference any previous opinions, which assumes what it is trying to prove.
It can be thought of as 'reduced-form equations' such that privileges, immunity, and other outcomes must be decided in terms of the exogenous variables. This allows the exogenous variables to help define the feasible regions for government behavior.
Example: Note that the 16th Amendment doesn't specify how much income tax.
Is is, therefore, possible that Congress could vote to have everyone give all income to the government, then reallocate the income under yet another misapplication of the 2nd Welfare Theorem of Economics.
However, rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would preclude the "benevolent dictator model ' also known as the social planner model.
Additionally, the 5th amendment prevents the current rates of income tax, as the government is seizing property without just compensation, because the typical taxpayer is not getting very much in return for the money extorted from them.
While I agree completely with your thesis, I wonder why you did not mention the fate of Socrates in Athens. I know that you are focusing on non-citizens in the context of free speech but it was a pretty glaring omission. That said, I fully support your mission of keeping the issue of free speech front and center in a society that does not seem to realize where suppression of unfavored speech or even outright lies can lead.