David Redszus wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:51 pm
The First Amendment allows unlimited free speech on the floor of Congress.
Courts have not allowed free speech with regard to child pornography or the incitation of violence.
We also have slander and libel laws that seek to guide free speech.
But what about intentional false accusations of crimes and behavior for political purposes?
How many years in jail should Christine Ford spend in jail for her lies? Not just for perjury, but for
malicious personal damage.
If a woman makes an unproven, untruthful charge against the character and actions of a man, would
10 years in the slammer be adequate? Should it be more?
Although I understand the basic premise of your first statement, it contains a major flaw which I believe needs to be addressed.
The First amendment does not "Allow" the freedom of speech.
As stated in the Bill of rights:
"Congress shall make no law,... abridging the freedom of speech..."
The MOST important term in this proclamation is the word "the" preceding freedom of speech. That word confirms the drafters conceded that the existence of this individual human right preceded the Bill of Rights under the doctrine of NATURAL Law.
In other words, the drafters wrote it this way to annuciate that such rights, created by NATURE, NOT others, CANNOT be abridged, perverted or compromised BY OTHERS.
Viewing the existence of this freedom through this lens should quickly undermine the "need" or application of law(s) which infringe it.
I cannot possibly imagine the need or concern of PROHIBITTING free expression of child pornography since that VERY EXPRESSION can be used as EVIDENCE, or at very least probable cause, to convict those committing acts of sexual assault. I say, LET THEM post that shit, pictures, admissions of such acts, etc.. It would increase the chances of catching AND convicting these demented people.
Slander and Libel laws are ridiculous as well. Anyone with half brain is aware that ALL the smack talk in the world doesn't mean shit without EVIDENCE! The existence of such laws, quite frankly, is offensive to me because it suggests that "we" can't discern fact from fiction ourselves...
At this point, it's important to understand why such "exceptions" exist. It's certainly NOT to protect children, or the "little guy" or those who were slandered. It's because those who write law PRACTICE LAW. What better way is there to secure a "good living" for those in the legal community than to pass MORE LAW?
That said, onto your last question.
Regarding false allegations which have serious legal ramifications such as rape. If the legal system were SERIOUS about mitigating such activity and administering justice EFFICIENTLY, they would require the plaintiff to pay ALL legal expenses PRIVATELY, not just attorney fees but ALSO ALL COURT fees and administrative costs. There's no reason you or I should have to subsidize this nonsense, ONLY the one bringing the claim.
This would do MULTIPLE things, it would virtually eliminate frivolous claims and/or those with little or no evidence to substantiate them. It would incentivize people to be MORE ACCOUNTABLE for their OWN actions AND It would also put immense pressure on the justice system and the "legal community" to REDUCE the costs of administering justice because those costs would no longer be invisible to those benefitting from it.
However, as said earlier, why would those in Congress,
ALL those in State Senate and Assemblies and ALL of the stuffed shirts flooding our dockets want that?...