Stories and commentary about the most evil court in the country. A system designed to inflict pain and suffering while enriching players, lawyers, vendors and judges with family savings. Protecting the paedophile monsters of society and trafficking their toys being the primary function.
As Justice Brennan says:
Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self- government. The First and Fourteenth Amendments embody our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964).
As Justice Clark of SCOTUS writes:
The principle that justice cannot survive behind walls of silence has long been reflected in the “Anglo-American distrust for secret trials.” A responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field. Its function in this regard is documented by an impressive record of service over several centuries. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. This Court has, therefore, been unwilling to place any direct limitations on the freedom traditionally exercised by the news media for “what transpires in the courtroom is public property.” The “unqualified prohibitions laid down by the framers were intended to give to liberty of the press . . . the broadest scope that could be countenanced in an orderly society.” …we have consistently required that the press have a free hand, even though we sometimes deplored its sensationalism. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333; 350 (1966)
Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? Justice W.O. Douglas
You want some speech?
A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purposes when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. Justice W.O. Douglas Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).
Fuck Family Court DISCRETION
Absolute discretion is a ruthless master. It is more destructive of freedom than any of man’s other inventions. Justice W.O. Douglas United States v. Wunderlich, 342 U.S. 98, 101 (1951).
Kiss my fucking ass…..
Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience … that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance. Justice W. O. Douglas, Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 447 (1957).
Fuck Family Court’s Jewish Agenda
In MATAL v. TAM a.k.a Slants:
The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929).
Whining Jews
The Sixth Circuit rules that goy criticism of all things jewish is protected speech, complaining to federal court is a waste of time, relief cannot be granted for jewish butthurt. See Gerber v. Herskovitz (2021).
Stupid Cops
First Amendment provides for free discussion of government affairs, 384 US 214. Just because a thin blue line donut whore does not like a post there is no probable cause of true threats, as North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in State v Taylor. Another example of online rants against incompetent government officials taken as criminal speech by ignorant cops thwarting criticism of their masters. The flying monkeys of the Land of Oz are so loyal to their masters. Two uneducated hillbillies Sheriff Robert Holland and his retarded sidekick Deputy Andy Shields, acting as speech gestapo in defiance of the First Amendment got probable cause shoved up their asses by the high court. May Dorthy’s house fall on them in defense of the Constitution.
Advocating Force
SCOTUS ruled in 1969 that a State cannot trash freedoms of speech and press to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation. Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444, 447. Advocacy of violence or criminal activity is protected under the First Amendment, speech is immune from prosecution, advocacy of abstract ideas and political action hold constitutional protection. “The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of conviction and the government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience.” Id. 457. In simple prose, free expression protects the advocacy of the Second Amendment to remedy the harm of family court inflicted upon society by the chosen ones. Just free speech, so get over it. Present day form family court needs to be eradicated just like a disease.
Free To Ignore
USDJ Roger Titus states in U.S. v Cassidy that Blog does not communicate, it exists in cyberspace, readers must seek it; free to ignore it. Offensive, emotionally distressing, vile, distasteful, uncomfortable, are mere descriptors of protected speech. Speech that resorts to exaggeration, vilification, even false statements about officials is a liberty essential to enlightened opinion and proper conduct of citizens of a democracy. Challenging old testament beliefs is a protected right.
Be Fucking Specific
Whining, sniveling cops hunting free expression need be cautious of poorly written statutes when the First Amendment is implemented, so sez SCOTUS in Hynes v Oradell, where CJ Burger opines: “As a matter of due process, no one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453 (1939). The general test of vagueness applies with particular force in review of laws dealing with speech. Stricter standards of permissible statutory vagueness may be applied to a statute having a potentially inhibiting effect on speech; a man may the less be required to act at his peril here, because the free dissemination of ideas may be the loser.” Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 151 (1959). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 76-82 (1976); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 611-612 (1973).
Fifty Calibre Opinion
Second Amendment provides wide range of calibre freedom seeds whose application is protected in political speech, so ruled by the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v Bagdasarian over a decade ago, cited in U.S. v Weiss, D. Northern California, 2020, by Breyer,J who upholds free speech for the lack of intent to achieve a ‘true threat’ exception of the First Amendment.
We recognize that, in addition to this objective component, the Ninth Circuit requires proof of a specific intent to threaten to satisfy the First Amendment. US v. ELONIS, 2016. Purpose of Blog is purely that of self-governance.
Antisemitism: Free Speech!
Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; Near v Minn. 714
No Harassment Exception
Alito states “the courts have never embraced a categorical ‘harassment exception’ from First Amendment protection for speech.” Saxe v State College, 211
Police State
Suppression of speech, as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution. Watts v. United States, 394 US 705, 712
Proof Required
Criminal speech does not turn on whining by the offended liberal, nor can police muscle be used to chill expression, there must be subjective intent, malice, recklessness, a.k.a. evidence of a ‘true threat’ proven by the state to protect free expression from jewdicial tyranny. Counterman v Colorado.
Try a little free speech