Yesterday, I saw a video of a man moving protestors out of a road they were blocking to protest the Biden administration's current policy on Israel. He was a big man. He grabbed them by the scruff of the neck and tossed them to the side of the road. I got the impression he needed to get somewhere in a hurry. Or maybe he was just angry. I get it.
Standing on the sidewalk and making your message known through a bullhorn or a sign is one thing. That's free speech. But how did we reach the point where anything someone does to make their point, regardless of how dangerous or stupid, is considered free speech?
I, too, am horrified by what the Israeli military is doing in the name of protecting Israel. There is no justification for wiping out an entire population because a faction of the population is corrupt and violent. War crimes are war crimes regardless of who commits them.
But blocking a road that people use to go to work, travel to the hospital, respond to 911 calls, etc., is not free speech — it's blocking traffic. It doesn't matter how upset you are — you don't have the right to interfere this way.
If you want to know what you can do, look up the definition of speech in the dictionary.
Speech is defined as follows:
The faculty or act of speaking.
The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
What is spoken or expressed, as in conversation; uttered or written words.
"seditious speech."
You'll notice that nothing in the definition of speech concerns putting your body in the way of others. No element of speech includes allowing you to sit in the middle of a road, thus preventing ambulances, people going to work, police vehicles, and those scrambling to make a flight from getting to their destination on time. That's not speech—that's obstruction of a roadway.
Blocking roads is also an ineffective protest tool because it makes people mad. You're not winning people over to your cause, solving a problem, or even articulating the problem—you're throwing a tantrum. If you want to know what works, try speech. Show up at your local representative's office and stand outside with a sign and a megaphone.
You can also write a letter to Congress or sign a petition online. If you want to help the Palestinians, send money to organizations that support the people of Palestine. Blocking roads does nothing but perhaps make you feel better — but feeling better when you accomplish nothing is akin to getting drunk or stoned. It's not activism — it's self-indulgence. I'm all for a good time, but protests are not parties; they are meant to be meaningful.
It's not free speech if you have to pay for it
It's also not free speech when you pay politicians to do what you want. Yes, you can donate to a campaign, but campaign finance laws are designed to ensure politicians are not bought — at least they used to be.
You and I have a cap on what we can donate, but since SCOTUS decided that corporations are people too, corporations can donate millions of unregulated dollars to political campaigns because that's considered "free speech."
Are you confused? I am. How is a corporation granted free speech rights based on its "personhood" without being bound by the same contribution limits people like you and I are bound by?
Back in the day, whenever we were confused about the law, we would send a representative case to the Supreme Court for clarification. Unfortunately, the pickle we are in now is the result of SCOTUS' inability to think its way out of a paper bag.
We probably shouldn't be surprised. After all, SCOTUS pretends to protect our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without granting women the right to bodily autonomy. So, in my opinion, their credibility is pretty much shot.
Corporations are people too
As for the SCOTUS decision that corporations are people, that's about as ludicrous as saying an embryo should have the same rights as a child.
A corporation is not a person; it is a group of people. As such, corporations should not have any political power. Everyone in a corporation gets one vote, just like you and me. The idea that a specific group of individuals can garner more political power simply by forming a group mocks the concept of "one person, one vote."
This is not complicated. It does not take a law degree. All you need is a dictionary. Dark money sent to political campaigns is not free speech because it's not free, and it's not speech.
Where does SCOTUS come up with this stuff?
If you are wondering where SCOTUS came up with the source material for this ridiculous opinion, it's the same way I get sources for my work. They search for language that proves their point. Without any requirement to provide context or further investigation, they find quotes that back up the conclusions they've already made — and voila! They have a precedent.
They ignore the fact that the opinions they cite conflict with multiple sources produced more recently. Likewise, they ignore science, which has given us knowledge and techniques that never existed in the past. If SCOTUS can find a source that says what they want it to say, they use it.
Just as I can type any question into a search engine and come up with various answers, SCOTUS is now fully automating its fact-gathering. The problem is that they are using select facts that prove their point without digging deep enough to notice that other facts disprove their point, and often, those facts are more relevant to the current situation.
The irony is that I hold myself accountable when I gather source material — whereas SCOTUS does not. If my searches turn up credible information that disproves what I want to say, I change my content to incorporate what I've learned. What's more, my writing does not affect the general public — you can read it or not and believe it — or not. I am presenting my perspective; I am not controlling the legal outcome of cases that determine our future.
SCOTUS appears to think the standard they hold themselves to can be significantly lower than mine. That's a problem. Moreover, nobody holds SCOTUS accountable—not the justices themselves or the Chief Justice. As a result, they have lost all credibility.
If the Supreme Court wants to regain its credibility, it can start by reversing its catastrophic decision in Dobbs. Next, it should undo Citizens United.
Originalists or Contextualists should know what words mean
For people who call themselves "originalists" or "contextualists," you'd think the far-right majority on the court would pay more attention to the words in the most important document in American history. Unfortunately, SCOTUS does not abide by the Constitution or the law as it's written; they manipulate it to get what they want.
Today (4.17.24), they are arguing about whether the word "otherwise" means what the dictionary says it means. The question revolves around a 2002 law that makes it a felony to interfere with an official proceeding.
In this case, one of the rioters who participated in the Jan. 6th storming of the Capitol is saying the law doesn't apply to what he did. His lawyers argue that he didn't destroy or mutilate any records; therefore, he cannot be charged according to the law.
That 2002 law makes it a felony to “corruptly” alter, destroy or mutilate a record with the intent of making it unavailable for use in an “official proceeding,” or to “otherwise” obstruct, influence, or impede such a proceeding.
Justice Kavanaugh seems to think the word "otherwise" does not apply to attacking police officers and forcing entry into a government facility with the express purpose of stopping the process of counting electoral college votes. (Or, he doesn't believe the process of counting electoral college votes qualifies as an official proceeding.) And Justice Roberts seems to concur. (Apparently, they are also having trouble recalling the meaning of the word "or.”)
I would have hoped that after seeing the events of Jan. 6th unfold, they would be more concerned with holding the perpetrators accountable than redefining words whose meaning is already clear.
Perhaps I'm asking too much of them. After all, they don't understand what the words "free," "speech," and "people" mean either.