This should be a short read.
If every individual spoke with the sophistication and eloquence of a Harvard dean, there would be little, if any, discourse surrounding the limitations of expressive conduct. That, however, is not the case; such a world would be a very boring one indeed. As a consequence, some of the most contentious cases surrounding free expression involve conduct that is unpopular and uncouth. How a society responds to crude, obnoxious, or even morally reprehensible forms of dissent is generally a bellwether for other facets of their approach to individual and political rights.
See, over the past two weeks, I have read no less than fifty comments on CuckTears suggesting that Nathan Larson (a burgercel who is the administrator of *********) deserves to be arrested, imprisoned, raped, beaten, tortured, maimed, or otherwise executed. I could not help but notice the irony of those statements coming from ostensibly woke SJWs, whose dismissive stance on civil liberties mirrors those of scumbag authoritarians like Edwin Meese and John Yoo (who served during the Reagan and Bush administrations respectively).
At the same time, there seems to be a sizeable number of fellow incels who are misguidedly applauding the Trump administration's crackdown on the George Floyd protests this year -- earlier in D.C. and now in Portland. I'm sure it excites some of you to see your political opponents -- people of colour and femoids in particular -- tear-gassed, beaten, and arrested by unmarked federal agents. But I'm not so sure that it is prudent to approve of such a relationship between the citizen and the state, where law enforcement has free rein to escalate and employ excessive force in order to create a chilling effect on freedom of assembly.
What neither soycucks nor incels understand is that the political winds don't necessarily blow in their favour, and that's why it's important to err on the side of preserving individual rights, even for individuals whose views you find repugnant, excepting only the most narrowly tailored scenarios. For example, the executive should not be able to suppress dissent simply by labelling (with little or no judicial input) a broad and loosely organized subculture as "terrorism", as Trump tried to do with Antifa on Twitter, and as CuckTears wants the FBI to do with incels.
This brings me to the Supreme Court. As the digital sphere encompasses an increasingly significant aspect of everyone's lives, it will be inevitable that more questions surrounding the limits of online speech and privacy will reach the court's docket. Indeed, some already have; see Elonis v. United States (2015) for a case involving a man whose violent rap lyrics and Facebook posts garnered the FBI's attention*. The candidate who wins the 2020 election could fill Ginsburg's and Breyer's seat, considering that both are in their 80s, shifting the court's direction for a generation.
Following Trump's unhinged Twitter responses earlier this month to Trump v. Mazars (2020) and Trump v. Vance (2020), two cases involving his tax returns, I am no longer convinced that Trump, if elected to a second term, would nominate principled originalists such as Neil Gorsuch. Instead, his nominees would probably be political hacks and ideological extremists who take an unnaturally deferent and dangerously broad view of executive authority, who don't care about the separation of powers nor due process. That could place at risk the liberties of the one-third of incels.co members who live in the United States.
------------------
*It remains to be seen whether adding "in Minecraft" to the end of a sentence affects federal prosecutors' ability to establish mens rea in cases involving "threats to injure in interstate commerce".
------------------
I felt compelled to make this thread because a friend of mine reminded me that William J. Brennan Jr. died on this day 23 years ago.
Brennan was one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in American history (writing 1,360 opinions during his term), and a staunch defender of freedom of expression, due process, and civil rights. He authored the majority opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and Dombrowski v. Pfister (1965), and took part in the per curiam opinions in Watts v. United States (1968) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). These cases, among other decisions by the Warren Court, significantly reinforced First Amendment protections -- concerning the legal boundaries of libel, the "chilling effect", threats, and incitement respectively. Later on, Brennan was one of the more frequent dissenters in the more conservative Burger and Rehnquist Courts, most prominently in the death penalty cases of the 1970s. Near the end of his tenure, he authored the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and U.S. v. Eichman (1990), two decisions which legalized flag desecration.
Even more controversially, Brennan also wrote the dissenting opinion in Osborne v. Ohio (1990), where he argued that the private possession of child pornography ought to be protected by the First Amendment. (thoughts @Mainländer @Edmund_Kemper @mylifeistrash ?)
RIP based SCOTUScel
If every individual spoke with the sophistication and eloquence of a Harvard dean, there would be little, if any, discourse surrounding the limitations of expressive conduct. That, however, is not the case; such a world would be a very boring one indeed. As a consequence, some of the most contentious cases surrounding free expression involve conduct that is unpopular and uncouth. How a society responds to crude, obnoxious, or even morally reprehensible forms of dissent is generally a bellwether for other facets of their approach to individual and political rights.
See, over the past two weeks, I have read no less than fifty comments on CuckTears suggesting that Nathan Larson (a burgercel who is the administrator of *********) deserves to be arrested, imprisoned, raped, beaten, tortured, maimed, or otherwise executed. I could not help but notice the irony of those statements coming from ostensibly woke SJWs, whose dismissive stance on civil liberties mirrors those of scumbag authoritarians like Edwin Meese and John Yoo (who served during the Reagan and Bush administrations respectively).
At the same time, there seems to be a sizeable number of fellow incels who are misguidedly applauding the Trump administration's crackdown on the George Floyd protests this year -- earlier in D.C. and now in Portland. I'm sure it excites some of you to see your political opponents -- people of colour and femoids in particular -- tear-gassed, beaten, and arrested by unmarked federal agents. But I'm not so sure that it is prudent to approve of such a relationship between the citizen and the state, where law enforcement has free rein to escalate and employ excessive force in order to create a chilling effect on freedom of assembly.
What neither soycucks nor incels understand is that the political winds don't necessarily blow in their favour, and that's why it's important to err on the side of preserving individual rights, even for individuals whose views you find repugnant, excepting only the most narrowly tailored scenarios. For example, the executive should not be able to suppress dissent simply by labelling (with little or no judicial input) a broad and loosely organized subculture as "terrorism", as Trump tried to do with Antifa on Twitter, and as CuckTears wants the FBI to do with incels.
This brings me to the Supreme Court. As the digital sphere encompasses an increasingly significant aspect of everyone's lives, it will be inevitable that more questions surrounding the limits of online speech and privacy will reach the court's docket. Indeed, some already have; see Elonis v. United States (2015) for a case involving a man whose violent rap lyrics and Facebook posts garnered the FBI's attention*. The candidate who wins the 2020 election could fill Ginsburg's and Breyer's seat, considering that both are in their 80s, shifting the court's direction for a generation.
Following Trump's unhinged Twitter responses earlier this month to Trump v. Mazars (2020) and Trump v. Vance (2020), two cases involving his tax returns, I am no longer convinced that Trump, if elected to a second term, would nominate principled originalists such as Neil Gorsuch. Instead, his nominees would probably be political hacks and ideological extremists who take an unnaturally deferent and dangerously broad view of executive authority, who don't care about the separation of powers nor due process. That could place at risk the liberties of the one-third of incels.co members who live in the United States.
------------------
*It remains to be seen whether adding "in Minecraft" to the end of a sentence affects federal prosecutors' ability to establish mens rea in cases involving "threats to injure in interstate commerce".
------------------
I felt compelled to make this thread because a friend of mine reminded me that William J. Brennan Jr. died on this day 23 years ago.
Brennan was one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in American history (writing 1,360 opinions during his term), and a staunch defender of freedom of expression, due process, and civil rights. He authored the majority opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and Dombrowski v. Pfister (1965), and took part in the per curiam opinions in Watts v. United States (1968) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). These cases, among other decisions by the Warren Court, significantly reinforced First Amendment protections -- concerning the legal boundaries of libel, the "chilling effect", threats, and incitement respectively. Later on, Brennan was one of the more frequent dissenters in the more conservative Burger and Rehnquist Courts, most prominently in the death penalty cases of the 1970s. Near the end of his tenure, he authored the majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and U.S. v. Eichman (1990), two decisions which legalized flag desecration.
Even more controversially, Brennan also wrote the dissenting opinion in Osborne v. Ohio (1990), where he argued that the private possession of child pornography ought to be protected by the First Amendment. (thoughts @Mainländer @Edmund_Kemper @mylifeistrash ?)
RIP based SCOTUScel
Last edited:
