MAL Contends — Legal, political, campaign news, and analysis: Search results for New York Times v. Sullivan

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query New York Times v. Sullivan. Sort by date Show all posts

Aug 29, 2019

New York Times v Sullivan Faces Challenge amid Changing Judiciary, Emboldened Racists

Manitowoc County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Colborn (ret)
has included an argument in his federal defamation
suit against the creators and distributors of Making a
Murderer that seeks to eviscerate First Amendment
protections exemplified in the First Amendment
case, New York Times v Sullivan.

Update: Trump calls for new accusers of Justice Kavanaugh to file suit for libel, and for U.S. Justice Dept to "rescue" embattled judge, (Newsweek).
--
Madison, Wisconsin — "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, ... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they [the press] write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws," blustered Donald Trump in February 2016, (The Politico).

Trump repeated his views on modern libel law doctrine after taking office because apparently he was not informed there are no federal libel laws that he can "open up."

Further, holdings of the landmark Supreme Court case, New York Times v Sullivan (1964), prevent an aggrieved government official from winning "lots of money" and prevailing in a civil action against citizens expressing opinions deemed caustic, unorthodox or irreverent, for example, toward our 'leaders.'

So, why worry? Trump is a lunatic, and whatever fantasies he manages are tempered by the reality of long-won legal victories holding malicious public officials in check.

The First Amendment freedoms of the press, speech and expression with which Trump is actually quarreling offer the most powerful protection in the world to people voicing thought at variance with public officials' assessment of their character and performance, (ACLU, Jan 2018; NYT, Feb 2019).

Trump's desire to litigate against the authors and publishers of prose written at Trump's expense seems little more than the wish of a half-wit pining for the 21rst century equivalent of the Sedition Act that criminalized writings thrusting government officials into disrepute.

Today, the Federalist Society, Republican senators and Donald Trump work assiduously to transform the federal judiciary into an adjunct arm of the Republican Party, white Evangelicals and corporate special interests, a la the corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Challenges to foundational cases codifiying American liberties are bubbling up through the federal judiciary.

And, Trump has "appointed nearly one in four of the nation's federal appeals court judges and one in seven of its district court judges," all activist ideologues vetted for their fidelity to an authoritarian and ahistorical jurisprudence, reports Carrie Johnson at National Public Radio.

Further, two of nine Trump-appointed justices serve on the Untied States Supreme Court forming a five-four majority of hyper-activist judges working for the interest of the Republican Party.

It is in this milieu that we ought to be concerned about Republicans on the United States Supreme Court hollowing out our liberties generally.

The Trumpist hostility against the press has escalated into a political assault against the journalists themselves. Reports the New York Times: "A loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive operation to discredit news organizations deemed hostile to President Trump by publicizing damaging information about journalists. ... [Poiltical] operatives have compiled dossiers and research that is "said to extend to members of journalists’ families who are active in politics, as well as liberal activists and other political opponents of the president."

Specifically, current efforts to ultimately convince the United States Supreme Court to revisit New York Times v Sullivan should be considered in light of the struggle between those who see human beings as instruments and often enemies of the State, and those who see the State as an instrument of human beings.

Crazy, crazy. It's rightwingers.

Cases in three different regional appellate circuits — Second, Sixth and Seventh — feature rightwing plaintiffs intent on revisiting Sullivan, the eloquently written opinion codifying First Amendment rights of the press, speech and expression by citizens voicing thought regarding public officials. [Sullivan protections were subsequently expanded to include other classes of public figures, somewhat more controversially.]

Though the three challenges do not appear to be well-organized, well-considered and linked, we would be fools to not be concerned.

New York Times v Sullivan

L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery, Alabama Commissioner of Public Affairs filed a libel suit against "Negroes," clergymen and the New York Times Company for a full-page ad, entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices," run in the Times on March 29, 1960 in which the defendants call for human dignity, guarantees of the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and defense of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, (p 257, New York Times v Sullivan).

The ad was signed at the bottom of the page by the "Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South."

L.B. Sullivan was not mentioned by name in the ad, but the ad condemned actions of the Montgomery police, and Sullivan reasoned he was implicitly criticized and libeled because of his authority as a supervisor of City police, (p 258, New York Times v Sullivan).

A jury in the Montgomery County Circuit Court awarded Sullivan $500,000.

American Court victories won for liberty usually come after indescribable costs in blood and lives — state-perpetrated genocide, slavery, terror, massacres, murder, frame-ups, incarcerations, character assassination, trauma, intimidation, hate, racism and harassment, continuing today.

The New York Times and civil rights workers prevailed over the tyrannical Montgomery police and its odious City officials at the United States Supreme Court.

Justice William Brennan writing for a unanimous court authored a defense of the liberty of the people against government tyrants, a principle that today stands as both an inspiring statement for liberty and a landmark declaration of the power of citizens over public officials.

Writes Brennan:

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a 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. (New York Times v. Sullivan).

Parable of Racist Police

To understand the power of Sullivan today, consider a recent example of racist Wisconsin police in which the DeForest, Wisconsin Police Chief Daniel Furseth was caught on video surveiling and mocking a group of black teenagers dressed for their high school prom, and stopping by an area restaurant, as was reported by a former police intern on YouTube in June 2018.

DeForest, Wisconsin Police Chief Daniel Furseth is a racist
cop who surveiled and mocked five young black men
in some faux black slang with a demeaning, racist and
derogatory narrative caught on video. Furseth was widely
criticized, resigning under fire before joining like-minded police
at the Town, not the City, of Madison, Wisconsin. Prior to
the holdings in New York Times v Sullivan (1964), public
officials like the Furseth could prevail in libel actions, pleading
libel per se against those such as the police intern who
published the video on YouTube. Wrties the whistle-
blower: "This is what the stupid, ignorant, and imbecilic Village
of DeForest elects to be their 'Top Cop.' This is the racist
Chief of Police Daniel Furseth, who is much like the rest of
DeForest, poorly educated, socially intolerant, and completely
incompetent when it comes to federal law (you know
the one that trumps state and local law when it’s in conflict
with it). Only a redneck and backassward community like
DeForest would want someone like this as a Chief to keep the
black man out."

Observing the youths and commenting in mocking accent, Furseth said: "Okay, we is out on our dates. We got the bitches, we gonna get them, and we gonna give them food. I got my cane, I’ve gots (sic) my suit. Oh baby … Okay, boys, let’s go in. This is the fanciest restaurant we ever been to and it’s called the Steak ‘N Shake. (Laughter) Unbelievable."

A reader should listen to the 36-second clip on YouTube to get a full accounting of the malice and racism that most small-town Wisconsin cops know to keep under wraps. Furseth and his all-white police force really do not like black people.

In August 2018 came reports of four new counts of misconduct by Furseth, (WISC-TV).

Chased out of office, the racist Daniel Furseth was never heard from again, right? Wrong.

Furseth was quickly hired by the town of Madison, not the City, in October 2018.

An official with the town of Madison police department, not the City, confirmed by phone on August 14, 2019 that Furseth is still employed with the Town police, locally notorious for racism, harassment, bogus citations and misconduct.

Pre-New York Times v Sullivan (1964), or had American jurisprudence taken another direction, the Town, DeForest and Furseth may have enjoyed cause for civil action for my opining that Daniel Furseth and Town and Village officials are racist, ignorant pig-fuckers who should have their teeth kicked out.

The former police intern who blew the whistle on YouTube similarly might not enjoy protections for his commentary about the character of the DeForest, Wisconsin Police Dept in which Furseth rose through the all-white ranks to become chief in 2015.

The judiciary over the last 60 years has risen to become a refuge for civil pleadings from social movements working for those persecuted by the State — often the repository of lurid souls like Daniel Furseth and L.B. Sullivan who, one may believe, should be anomalous is a classical liberal society.

Liberties Prevail

The United States Supreme Court of the 1950s, 60s and 70s in significant areas made it appear individual rights prevailing were a dynamic as inevitable as the triumph of reason over racism and liberation over atavistic taboo.

Landmark legal rulings after rulings were won and each victory seemed a fulfillment of long-denied liberties as the civil rights and peace movement flourished.

Brown v Board of Education (1954), New York Times v Sullivan (1964), Loving v Virgina (1967), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and United States v. United States District Court (1972) and dozens more Court holdings promised to buttress citizens against routine incursions of liberty by State actors and law enforcement.

Sullivan under Attack

Many today fear an epic backlash, and the challenges to Sullivan are emblematic.

There are now at least three cases in three different appellate circuits — Second, Sixth and Seventh — in which rightwing plaintiffs appear intent on revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan.

Sixth Circuit - Nicholas Sandmann v. WP Company LLC, d/b/a [doing business as] The Washington Post (2:19-cv-00019). Plaintiff says he will appeal the dismissal decided in jUly 2019.
Seventh Circuit - Andrew Colborn v. Netflix, Inc (1:19-cv-00484). Likely to be dismissed in a Dec 19, 2019 hearing in District court. An appeal is possible.
Second Circuit - Sarah Palin v New York Times Co, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 17-3801. Case will be heard on the merits in U.S. District Court.

All three plaintiffs above are political rightwingers.

Sandmann and Palin are demonstrable racists.

All three cases appear more the result of isolated rightwing angst at the liberal press, and, in Colborn's case, astonishment that analysis and commentary dare accuse a law enforcement officer of criminal misconduct.

So, Google-alert the cases and keep your eyes out.

Jun 14, 2019

Wisconsin Cop Asks Federal Court to Gut Landmark First Amendment Case

Making a Murderer case seen as vehicle to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, reorder libel law, per Justice Clarence Thomas

Update II: Settlement talks and remediation proceedings did not result in a resolution, (Colborn v Netflix), March 2021.

The first thing to know is that the Coborn brief and this argument (apparently) both rely on a single source of authority: Justice Thomas concurring opinion in an earlier case. Except that it wasn't really a "case", it was a denial of cert (the Supreme Court declining to hear an appeal from the First Circuit from the dismissal of a defamation claim brought by Bill Cosby against an actress who accused him of rape).

The thing is, no other justice joined that opinion, nor am I aware of any other justice who has ever advocating revisiting Sullivan in this way. And Thomas takes lots of positions in which he stands alone, such as his argument that the Establishment Clause does not apply to states at all. Thomas defends these positions on strict originalist grounds; the late Justice Scalia was talking about Thomas when he said "I may be an originalist but I'm not a nut".

So in any ordinary time I would say this is a hopeless Hail Mary legal argument with essentially zero chance of success. But it is possible that we are entering extraordinary times in constitutional doctrine, especially where the First Amendment is concerned. President Trump has publicly called for a reconsideration of the Sullivan rule, and the Republican Senate has been extremely effective in filling judicial seats with extremely right wing candidates in ways that have bypassed almost all existing checks and procedures in favor of speed and efficiency. As a result, there is a cadre of federal judges, all recently appointed, who are preselected to be open to reconsideration of settled doctrines across a range of issues. We also have a Supreme Court that features Brett Kavanaugh, who might have personal reasons to want to see the freedom to say bad things about public figures subjected to some restraints. So these lawyers may be gambling that the time is ripe for a shocking victory against the body of existing precedent.

One final comment is that there are actually very good reasons for reconsidering the scope of the Sullivan doctrine, but this particular case does not raise those reasons for consideration. The original doctrine applied only to claims of libel by elected officials. In subsequent cases the scope of the doctrine was extended to include "public figures" such as actors, musicians, and athletes. People have become "involuntary public figures" by virtue of having been involved in events through no fault of their own, and in some cases the Sullivan principle has been extended to include essentially any matter of "public interest", which results in a near-total obviation of privacy rights that would otherwise apply. It is not a coincidence that no other constitutional court has chosen to follow our Supreme Court's lead on this issue. Constitutional courts in Australia, New Zealand, and Europe have considered the American Sullivan rule and rejected it, especially as applied beyond public officials.

In this case, of course, the plaintiffs are public officials, so this is what might be called a "core" Sullivan case. It is certainly highly unlikely that any lower federal court will take it upon itself to accept these arguments, but a request to reconsider settled doctrine is not aimed at the trial court, it is aimed directly at the Supreme Court. I find it very hard to imagine this Court overruling or altering Sullivan, but then a lot of things have happened in recent years that I would have thought unimaginable in quieter times.

On a larger note, we tend to forget that our system of constitutional law periodically goes through periods of fairly dramatic reinterpretation in which arguments that had previously been thought fringe become mainstream. To take only one example, for a century the idea that the Second Amendment secured an individual right to own guns was considered absurd, yet given the right constellation of political and legal developments we got the Heller decision.

It appears likely this argument doubles as a plea for President Donald Trump's political attention, in light of Trump's oft-expressed disdain for speech critical of public figures, (New York Times).

Colborn's argument in the brief, (pp 14-16), is reproduced below:

I. The “Actual Malice” Requirement Should Be Reconsidered.

In a recent concurrence to a denial of a petition for certiorari , United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opined that it is time for the Court to reconsider its jurisprudence under New York Times v. Sullivan in an appropriate case. As explained below, this is an appropriate case. Therefore, while this argument is directed to the United States Supreme Court, it is stated briefly here in order to preserve the opportunity to seek review. The central point of Justice Thomas’ argument is that there was no First or Fourteenth Amendment basis for the “actual malice” rule adopted in New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, and that it was instead merely a policy that the Court instituted in response to the facts presented in the case. McKee v. Cosby, --- U.S. ---, 139 S.Ct. 675, 676 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring).

The New York Times case came before the Court by way of a defamation complaint filed by a southern police official who claimed that his reputation had been injured by a political advertisement that decried alleged violations of civil rights. Some of the facts stated in the advertisement were conceded to have been false, and the New York Times admitted that it had not investigated any of the facts nor even consulted its own articles about the events described, but instead relied on the reputations of individuals whose names were listed in the advertisement as supporting its content. 376 U.S. 257-61. After surveying writings by James Madison that attacked the Sedition Act of 1798, which criminalized criticism of government, the Supreme Court declared in New York Times that Madison’s writings supported the proposition that state libel laws prohibiting false defamation of government officials violate the First Amendment. 376 U.S. 273-77. But as Justice Thomas pointed out in McKee, that conclusion represented a leap of logic:

. . . constitutional opposition to the Sedition Act — a federal law directly criminalizing criticism of the Government — does not necessarily support a constitutional actual-malice rule in all civil libel actions brought by public figures.

139 S.Ct. at 682. Moreover, as Justice Thomas further explained, Madison’s writings both supported the view that public officials wronged by false statements should have redress under the law and opposed the concept of federally-dictated libel laws. Id. Yet, the Supreme Court has recognized that New York Times v. Sullivan has resulted in the federalization of libel law. Id. at 676 (citing and quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 370 (1974)).

In adopting the policy that it embraced in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court purported to seek a balance between the “breathing space” that the Court contended must be afforded statements critical of public officials and the notion that the press should not be afforded wholesale license to inflict reputational harm at whim. 376 U.S. at 271-72 (internal 15 quotation and citation omitted). This case illustrates precisely the abuses that have proliferated as a result of the balance that the Court attempted to strike. Netflix asserts in this case that it may freely distribute defamatory statements that accuse a small-town police officer of participating in a criminal conspiracy in the course of his work, exposing him to worldwide opprobrium, without the slightest responsibility or accountability for the truth of those statements, hiding under the shield of the First Amendment, but all the while reaping riches that it derived from destroying Plaintiff’s reputation.

Netflix argues that it has the judicially-sanctioned right to deprive Plaintiff of his good reputation and to transform it into a commodity that it can distort for its own profit. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court imagined that its ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan would be used in such a way. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the United States Supreme Court reconsider the actual malice standard to the extent that it is asserted to protect this conduct. ...
---
Has Justice Thomas detected a leap of logic in Sullivan?

Colborn's response brief is reproduced in full below:

Colborn Response by on Scribd

Mar 16, 2023

Disgraced Wisconsin District Attorney Wants NYT v. Sullivan 'Overturned' Following Legal Defeat for Cop

Goya Here Comes the Bogeyman,
plate three from Los Caprichos.
Bogeyman do not like criticism
from citizens.

Crooked Cops Fly Together

Commentary

Madison, Wisconsin — Disgraced Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz resigned in 2010 following allegations Kratz sexually harassed several women, including a sexual assault claim alleging Kratz "had forcible sex with an emotionally vulnerable woman after previously prosecuting the woman," (Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kratz (In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kratz)).

Kratz is also notorious for his crooked prosecutions of less than two years earlier from Kratz' harassment and assault, a time during which Kratz corruptly prosecuted two innocents featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer (Netflix) docuseries. Kratz termed himself a "dick" for the assaults, not for the crooked prosecutions.

The "dick" blamed his narcissistic personality disorder and multiple drug addictions, after being driven from the district attorney's office after the allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault came to light, after which he was driven from the Wisconsin legal profession altogether in 2019.

Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were convicted of first-degree homicide by Kratz for the 2005 murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach. Both men are serving life sentences in spectacular miscarriages of justice, supported by Wisconsin Democrats, the better to look tough on crime.

Now, a retired cop, Andrew Colborn, whom Wisconsin citizens say helped frame Steven Avery just lost a civil suit for defamation against Netflix. The case is Andrew L Colborn v. Netflix, Inc,, et al,, case No. 19-cv-0484-bhl); and the case was dismissed on summary judgement.

The crooked prosecutor Ken Kratz has raised his head again after being driven from office, the law profession and the state of Wisconsin.

Kratz wants the landmark First Amendment case, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) overturned.

"Shifting the burden to the defamed person to prove he didn’t plant evidence is, of course, an impossible standard. Courts continue to protect big media against any accountability for outrageous claims made in the name of entertainment. It’s time to overturn the NY Times vs Sullivan’s actual malice hurdle and recognize that real people, and their reputations, are being crushed in the process," the Wisconsin Law Journal quoted Kratz last week.

Kratz' statement follows plaintiff Andrew Colborn request to gut NYT v. Sullivan in a legal filing in 2019, a maneuver widely seen as Hail Mary call.

The core holdings of Sullivan protect rights of people in communities to criticize and hold accountable crooked public office holders Kratz and cops in east-central Wisconsin who routinely view with suspicion those citizens who fervently object to their conduct.

Colborn and Kratz are crazy.

Kratz lies whenever he speaks. He lost his career & reputation long before MaM, when he sexually harassed victims in cases he prosecuted & 15 women came forward. MaM just revealed his true character & his wrongful prosecution of innocent BD & SA. #Ibelieve15women #MakingAMurderer https://t.co/e7tGSnFJw6
— Jerome Buting (@JButing) March 16, 2023

New York Times v. Sullivan

In 1964, the New York Times and civil rights workers prevailed over tyrannical Montgomery police and its odious City officials at the United States Supreme Court, New York Times v. Sullivan .

Justice William Brennan writing for a unanimous court authored a defense of the liberty of the people against government tyrants, a principle that today stands as both an inspiring statement for liberty and a landmark declaration of the power of citizens over public officials.

Writes Brennan:

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a 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. (New York Times v. Sullivan).

Parable of Racist Police

To understand the power of Sullivan today, consider a recent example of racist Wisconsin police in which the DeForest, Wisconsin Police Chief Daniel Furseth was caught on video surveilling and mocking a group of black teenagers dressed for their high school prom, and stopping by an area restaurant, as was reported by a former police intern on YouTube in June 2018.

Sixth Circuit - Nicholas Sandmann v. WP Company LLC, d/b/a [doing business as] The Washington Post (2:19-cv-00019). Plaintiff says he will appeal the dismissal decided in jUly 2019.
Seventh Circuit - Andrew Colborn v. Netflix, Inc (1:19-cv-00484). Likely to be dismissed in a Dec 19, 2019 hearing in District court. An appeal is possible.
Second Circuit - Sarah Palin v New York Times Co, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 17-3801. Case will be heard on the merits in U.S. District Court.

Political rightwingers and disgraced cops. Yuck.

May 2, 2022

Biden, Democrats Surpass Orwell's Imagination; Proclaim Power to Discern and Delete Harmful Speech

Facing political disaster in the mid-term elections this Nov, the Biden administration and its media acolytes want the American people to know something: Fear Elon Musk.

That's right, Elon Musk's buying Twitter is a dire threat, and we ought not worry about inflation, looming recession, supply chains, student loans, healthcare costs, household debt and corporate takeover of elected government.

Because you the American people have never had it so good, and you need to trust your betters, and stay away from disinformation.

Now, Musk 'threatens' to open up Twitter to dissident voices who are popular with the American people, but the wrong kind of people who voice the wrong kind of speech and think the wrong kind of thought.

It's obvious Democrats and liberal allies fear the mid-terms because they fear the American people. And when information and thought are presented that threatens Democrat rule, the medium that conveys this information must be policed, and the thought must be purged.

Notes Glenn Greenwald this morning: "The worst, most egregious and most nefarious official US disinformation campaign in years was the pre-election CIA lie that the authentic Biden emails were 'Russian disinformation.' It was led by liberal outlets: CNN, Politico/Natasha Bertrand, HuffPost, Mother Jones, Intercept."

The worst, most egregious and most nefarious official US disinformation campaign in years was the pre-election CIA lie that the authentic Biden emails were "Russian disinformation."

It was led by liberal outlets: CNN, Politico/Natasha Bertrand, HuffPost, Mother Jones, Intercept. pic.twitter.com/h3Exzd8YLJ
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 2, 2022

Liberals have long besmirched social media because, they say, they fear platforms in which accredited "lies have unfettered access to the American electorate," in the words of corporatist Democrat, Aaron Sorkin, writing in the New York Times in 2019 in favor of censorship of Facebook.

Sorkin well represents the liberal mindset that reasons liberals and content managers are able to sift and winnow social media writing without being corrupted and misled, but most Americans are not equipped with liberals' powers of discernment.

I read about about Sorkin's call for heavy censorship in 2019, but now his narcissism and silly condescension have become Democrat orthodoxy, terrified of the American population.

Time again for a refresher on free speech.

Free speech need not be defended on grounds that consequences of liberty make for a healthy classical liberal society, ala New York Times v Sullivan (1964), an inspiring statement for liberty against those advocating for authoritative selection of published views.

However, the words of Justice William Brennan and other 20-century jurists speak forever to those who believe only they are immune from corruption of unorthodox thought, and their politcal rule must be protected against the vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.

Writes Brennan in Sullivan:

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a 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. (New York Times v. Sullivan).

Aaron Sorkin and Democrats ought consider the foundations of Sullivan today, because free speech protections may not be around forever.

Facebook and other social media well serve our national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited.

Consider the thoughts of Glenn Greenwald this morning, and don't worry, you won't be corrupted.

In fact, some of the most sanctimonious leftist writers have been on the dole of Silicon Valley billionaires while attacking others for impure funding. That Musk's purchase of Twitter is some novel development - except for its potential to restore free speech - is laughable. pic.twitter.com/4y7E9LB4kF
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 2, 2022

Collecting my checks from the Sulzberger dynasty (NYT). Laurene Powell-Jobs (Atlantic), MacKenzie Scott (countless left-liberal NGOs), Jeff Bezos (WP), Comcast Corp. (NBC/MSNBC), Warner Bros. Discovery Corp. (CNN), to write about the dangers of a billionaire's control of Twitter.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 2, 2022

Ok so why is it better for Musk to run Twitter than Dorsey and co? Is it better in any way? Or just better because it’s closer to your worldview of social media operation?
— Xavier Koenig (@xavkoenig) May 2, 2022

Because the current scheme is a censorship regime imposed on major social media platforms. Musk is promising to uproot that and instead allow free speech.

If he's sincere and follows through, it will be important. If he isn't and doesn't, nothing will change.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 2, 2022

Oct 31, 2019

In Defense of Facebook Against the Narcissism of Aaron Sorkin

A voice from Hollywood is attacking free speech on social media as non-authoritative voices continue to cast dissent at variance with proper discourse as determined by one Aaron Sorkin.

Sorkin pens an open letter to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg this morning in an op-ed in the New York Times fretting that "lies have unfettered access to the American electorate."

After first extolling the virtues of free speech, Sorkin makes the point that what he regards as assaults on truth need to be better policed, lest lies infect the public consciousness (and children) to ill effect.

Writes Sorkin:

I get a lot of use out of the First Amendment. Most important, it’s a bedrock of our democracy and it needs to be kept strong.

But this [Facebook] can’t possibly be the outcome you and I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together. Lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our elections and our lives and our children’s lives.

Sorkin says he loves the First Amendment, but while Sorkin is able to sift and winnow the content posted on Facebook without being corrupted, others are not equipped with Sorkin's powers of discernment.

I wonder if Aaron Sorkin is able to discern his narcissism and silly condescension. Underneath Sorkin's self-adulation is the censor and wanna-be tyrant.

While Sorkin's regard for himself is laughable, his attacks on free speech are not.

Free speech need not be defended on grounds that consequences of liberty make for a healthy classical liberal society, ala New York Times v Sullivan (1964), an inspiring statement for liberty against those advocating for authoritative selection of published views.

However, the words of Justice William Brennan and other 20-century jurists speak forever to those who believe only they are immune from the corruption of unorthodox thoughts.

Writes Brennan in Sullivan:

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a 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. (New York Times v. Sullivan).

Aaron Sorkin ought consider the foundations of Sullivan today, because free speech protections may not be around forever.

Facebook well serves our national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited.

Facebook recognizes that underlying discussion of public issues are the inalienable rights that define human beings in the American experiment.

Oct 10, 2022

Democrat Operative Rick Hasen Wants Trump Censored, American People Need Protection , Says Censor

Liberal Authoritarianism Returns with No Dissents from Democrats

Madison, Wisconsin — Rick Hasen is an election law scholar, commentator and Democrat operative.

It's the last two parts of his CV that has thrust the poor man into la-la land.

Hasen has joined the liberal-Democrat chorus of voices insisting that Donald Trump must be censored, deplatformed, and stopped from writing on social media because Trump's emissions are a "grave threat to American democracy" that likely will remain.

Instead of using the government to stop thought, Hasen wants to privatize repression of unpopular writing using the Tech Giants.

#ELB: My New Paper: “Donald Trump Should Remain Deplatformed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube Despite the High Bar That Platforms Should Apply to the Question of Deplatforming Political Figures” https://t.co/4e1Qw5bcnJ
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) October 10, 2022

One thing about censors like Hasen is the spectacular narcissism and self-regard proclaiming Rick Hasen is fit to sift and winnow Trump's social media content with no threat that Hasen will be filled with hate or driven to violence, while others are not equipped with Hasen's powers of discernment.

Aaron Sorkin bellowed the same clarion call for censorship of Trump three years ago with the same lack of self awareness.

Censors such as every Democrat and Hasen who advocate for authoritative selection of published views believe only they are immune from the corruption of unorthodox thoughts from a lunatic such as Trump. The American people cannot be trusted with exposure.

Time for another lesson on the need for the First Amendment, while there's still time.

From Justice William Brennan in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964):

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a 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. (New York Times v. Sullivan).

Hasen ought consider the foundations of Sullivan today, because free speech protections may not be around forever.

Social media, though it lives in private quasi utilities, well serves our national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited.

There is another case, with another classic formulation, that Rick Hasen should give a once-over: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969).

That whole imminent lawless action test as it applies to politcal speech. Give it read, couldn't hurt.

Aug 3, 2023

Trump Indictment Serves Dual Purpose for Democrats

United States v. Trump is part of Democrat scheme to establish
and enforce authoritative State voice on public affairs; and
criminalize wrongthink, thought deemed incorrect.

In modern American history no political Party has targeted free speech as systemically as Joe Biden and the Democrats.

Richard Nixon; 1960s Milwaukee police attempted banning wrong kind of newspaper; 1960s-70s wannabe state totalitarians are trivial next to today's Democrats' intricate censorship-industrial complex.

It is through this lens of audacious thought-control that we should consider the indictment, United States v.Donald J. Trump, (August 1, 2023).

The politcal compound of thought-control and political hatred is explosive in a democracy, with shattered civil liberties as primary objective, not remnant waste.

Anticipating the Aug. 1 indictment, American civil libertarians mused that powerful First Amendment free speech protections from the 1960-70s would likely doom Justice Dept attempts to join Trump's Jan 6 speech and the Capitol violence.

Noted Glenn Greenwald:

Any prosecution of Trump on the ground his Jan 6 speech "inspired" violence at the Capitol - even though he told them to act "peacefully" - would be a grave assault on seminal 1st Am protections of Brandenburg and Claiborne.

But, to them, anything is justified to stop Trump.

See also, The Insidious and Unreported Legal Assault on Landmark Free Speech Rulings, From BLM Leaders to Donald Trump; Greenwald.

Greenwald was right. The DoJ backed down, and instead contrived a bizarre indictment where speech and politcal activity are recognize in one paragraph and criminalized in the next.

The indictment accuses Donald Trump of falsity in his expressed beliefs and statements made prior to Jan. 6, 2021; but backed down from criminalizing Trump's rally and address on the Ellipses on Jan 6, 2021.

Writes Jonathan Turley:

[Special Counsel Jack] Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration for a politician on false claims made during and after an election.
The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment. This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment. It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.

Whatever Democrats may believe, the indictment critically relies on criminalizing protected speech, and the U.S. government's determination that speech is "false" or true, to chronicle Trump's alleged criminal scheme.

If a guilty verdict is reached at trial, no way U.S. Supreme Court lets this indictment prevail against Trump and American citizens who are the beneficiaries, call them Americans, of value we place on political speech.

The ACLU refused a comment on the merits of the indictment. ACLU is a shell of its former self.

But free speech, one can predict, lives on.

As Justice William Brennan writes in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964):

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a 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. (New York Times v. Sullivan).

Trump is wrong-headed in most of his statements he made after the 2020 Nov presidential elections.

Speech and analyses are called for, not a criminal indictment.

Apr 11, 2019

Wisconsin Sheriff Deputy's Defamation Suit Against Making a Murderer Appears Doomed

Manitowoc County Sheriff Dept Lt. Andrew Colborn, (Ret),
was implicated in misconduct in the second Steven Avery
frame-up, becoming a major disgraced public figure, as
documented in Making a Murderer, and Wrecking Crew,
Demolishing The Case Against Steven Avery, (Ferak),
and demonstrated at public trial.

Law enforcement civil action against critics of official conduct fades against reason and public discussion by two filmmakers advocating for two wrongfully convicted men, and the truth that will set them free

Update: In July 2019, U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper published a NOTICE of Hearing on pending motions set for December 19, 2019.

It appears likely Judge Pepper will dismiss Colborn's legal action, Colborn v. Netflix, Inc (1:19-cv-00484).

Just as likely, Colborn will appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Updated: Critics of corruption in the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office point out that Sheriff Deputy Andrew Colborn (ret) was a candidate for elected public office, the Republican Party nominee for Manitowoc County Sheriff in 2006. This fact appears to further disconfirm the former public-office candidate Colborn's claim that this 26-year public servant is not a public official under defamation law, a status that renders the speech in Making a Murderer privileged speech, (Screen-shot of the Manitowoc Herald-Times, 2006, Reddit).
---
Madison, Wisconsin — Recent developments in the assault-defamation action brought by a retired lieutenant of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office have First Amendment defenders, the Making a Murderer creators and advocates of wrongful-conviction victims happy this week.

Retired Manitowoc County Sheriff Office Lt. Andrew Colborn, who allegedly helped frame Steven Avery is soaking up his tax-payer-financed pension after committing the moral equivalent of murder in his public conduct and performance of public duties, as documented in Making a Murderer (Seasons One and Two) and the public criminal trial of innocents and post-conviction litigation.

Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are victims, and Andrew Colborn is among the weak and miserable people capable of framing innocent men.

The critical mass of pathological entitlement, malice, and dehumanization is nurtured in the small-town, corrupt culture of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office and Calumet County Sheriff's Office and respective county district attorneys' offices that cultivate a Ken Kratz, a disgraced sex offender and special prosecutor who lied to obtain convictions against Avery and Dassey.

In December 2018, Colborn — likely becoming the subject of a criminal probe before this sordid affair is through — filed a defamation suit against against the Making a Murderer producers, Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, Netflix and others in Manitowoc County Wisconsin Circuit Court, (Andrew L. Colborn v. Netflix Inc., Chrome Media LLC, Laura Ricciardi, Moira Demos, Lisa Nishimura, Adam Del Deo, Mary Manhardt, and Synthesis Film LLC). [Summons and Complaint text is here.]

The case, as expected, was removed to federal court, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, on April 4, (WBAY, Appleton Post-Crescent). The federal civil case is: Colborn v. Netflix Inc (1:19-cv-00484).

The rightwing Federalist Society-linked presiding Judge William C. Griesbach, brother of attorney Michael C. Griesbach who represents Colborn and is a former Manitowoc County prosecutor, recused on April 5.

The rightwing legal community in east-central is incestuous and adjudicates in an activist, results-oriented fashion.

U.S. Dist Judge Pamela Pepper was assigned as presiding judge on April 5 for all further court proceedings.

This is good news for the defendants and the First Amendment as the consensus on Judge Pepper is she is an intellectual jurist of high character, with no ties to the east-central Wisconsin corrupt legal community.

The conventional wisdom among court observers is Netflix, Inc, et al will make a motion to dismiss this Personal Injury - Assault, Libel, and Slander action this Spring or Summer.

Plaintiff Colborn's action accuses Netlix, Inc and other defendants of having "omitted, distorted, and falsified material and significant facts in an effort to portray Plaintiff [Andrew Colborn] as a corrupt police officer who planted evidence to frame an innocent man," (Appleton Post-Crescent).

According to Colborn's novel theory of libel law underlying his complaint, any public official performing his public duties, criticized at a public trial, now enjoys a basis for a civil action if journalistic and political speech criticizing the official's public conduct does not comport with a cop's, for instance, self-serving portrayal of his own public performance.

Add to Colborn's position in the defamation suit that Andrew Colborn was a candidate for Republican Party nominee for Manitowoc County Sheriff in 2006 just months after Oct 31, 2005 murder of Ms. Halbach. (Screen-shot of the Manitowoc Herald-Times, 2006, Reddit).

The public interest in ensuring the public integrity of police would appear to insulate journalists and political commentators from libel actions because of the protections in the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a judicial doctrine exemplified in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).

Reached for comment, Howard Schweber, an expert in constitutional law, judicial politics, free speech, and democratic theory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, acclaimed the prominence of the First Amendment.

"The [deputy] sheriff [Colborn] is certainly a public figure, and the subject of the statements involves his performance of his duties. That combination--a public official and a matter of public interest--entitles the defendants to the greatest possible level of First Amendment protection. As a result, I think this will be a difficult lawsuit to win, and any verdict in favor of the plaintiffs would certainly be appealed," said Schweber.

Colborn is of course faced with establishing "actual malice" from the creators and distributors of Making a Murderer. Actual malice is defined here as the portrayal of Colborn with the knowledge that Colborn's public actions as reported in the documentary are false or, that the documentary portrayed Colborn with reckless disregard of the truth.

Since the rigorous sourcing of the documentary is derived mostly from the public trial transcript, Colborn's action seems desperate.

But there is more at stake in this case than the plight of another dopey cop from east-central Wisconsin.

Without a win for Netflix Inc., Chrome Media LLC, Laura Ricciardi, Moira Demos, Lisa Nishimura, Adam Del Deo, Mary Manhardt, and Synthesis Film LLC in this case, every corrupt cop could in principle bring civil actions against the protesting public for today's equivalent of seditious libel of government officials, should a federal appellate court adopt Colborn's ludicrous reading of the First Amendment and defamation.

Colborn's action like so much other action committed by law enforcement in east-central Wisconsin cannot stand under the light of examination.

As Justice Brennan, writing for an unanimous court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), offered in defense of the liberty of the people against government miscreants and tyrants:

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1943).
Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a 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. (p. 270, New York Times v. Sullivan).

Yes.
---
In the event the defendants' motion for a dismissal is not granted, Kathleen Zellner, Avery's post-conviction attorney uninvolved in the Colborn v Nettfix, Inc., sounded ecstatic on hearing news of the defamation action becasue law enforcement personnel will be forced to testify under oath.

Newsweek reported in December 2018:

Kathleen Zellner has called a recent lawsuit an 'early Christmas present' to her and the Making A Murderer team, though the filmmakers are the subject of the lawsuit. Former Officer Andrew Colborn is suing Netflix and Making A Murderer filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi for defamation, according to the lawsuit, filed Tuesday.

To Zellner, Avery’s current post-conviction attorney, the lawsuit is a gift. 'We are thrilled that Colborn filed this lawsuit [because] he will have to testify under oath about all of the issues that have swirled around him for years,' Zellner told Rolling Stone on Wednesday. 'Everything about the first wrongful conviction will be exhaustively explored as well. From having observed the meticulous, painstaking, uncompromisingly ethical work of Ricciardi and Demos for two-and-a-half years they have to be amused but not in the least threatened by this frivolous lawsuit. For us it is an early Christmas present.'

Colborn, who was an officer on the Steven Avery case featured in the series, claims the documentary series used a biased angle to wrongfully accuse Colborn and the Manitowoc County Police Department of planting evidence to convict Avery.

The lawsuit reads they 'omitted, distorted, and falsified material and significant facts in an effort to portray [Colborn] as a corrupt police officer who planted evidence to frame an innocent man. Defendants did so with actual malice and in order to make the film more profitable and more successful… sacrificing and defining [Colborn’s] character and reputation in the process.'

It also commented on the 'overwhelming guilt' of both Avery and his convicted nephew Brendan Dassey, as well as pieces of evidence featured in the series, which some claim were planted. Colborn then suggested had the filmmakers included more of his testimony at Avery’s trial, Avery’s guilt would have been overwhelmingly obvious.

Zellner disagrees. 'The basic theme of the complaint is flawed,' she told Rolling Stone. 'He is going to have to show that, but for these few edits, the world would have viewed Sgt. Colborn differently. … If the public wanted an un-edited version it could order the trial transcripts. Filmmaking is not stenography.'

Making a Murderer is speech — certainly a vehement, caustic, and harsh attack on government and public officials — and though a pathological sense of entitlement appears to have gripped some units of Wisconsin law enforcement, the sovereign rights of citizens in our democracy to criticize their own government must prevail.

Social Security and Medicare Targeted by Ayn Rand-worshipping Republicans

"I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and 'shareholder value' the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one. If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté. They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be 'forced' to make 'hard choices' - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked."

- Mike Lofgren, who retired on June 17, 2011 after 28 years as a Republican Congressional staffer. TruthOut, Saturday September 3, 2011 Update: Trump and Musk appear motivated to get in on the action, a politically fraught posture that may spell beginning of the politcal end of this administration.

Richard Posner's evisceration of fallacious and deceitful argument against voting rights

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Frank v Walker; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin et al v. Deininger (Nos. 14-‐‑2058, 14-‐‑2059)
On Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc; Oct 10, 2014
Judge Richard Posner's work is an evisceration of major fallacious and deceitful arguments against voting rights, and in favor of restrictive photo voter IDs.

Republicans are not so certain about voters; enacting voter obstruction laws wherever they hold a majority, secure in the knowledge that federal Republican judges will reside in the Republican legislatures' "fact-free cocoon in which to lodge the federal judiciary." (Posner, Frank v. Walker; p. 26)

Wisconsin v Steven Avery

Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. 08-16-2022. Includes affidavit from witness, Thomas Sowinski, who saw prosecution's star witness planting murder victim's car onto defendant's property. Tape and log of Mr. Sowinski's Nov. 5, 2005 phone call to Manitowoc Sheriff Dept was hidden from the defense, despite requests for all recordings and information, and despite duty of the State to disclose evidence, and duty not to withhold exculpatory evidence, Brady violation.

- Steven Avery Motion to Stay Appeal and Remand, includes new eyewitness affidavit. April 12, 2021

- Steven Avery Legal Filings - Updates

- State of Wisconsin v. Steven A. Avery, Appeal Number 2017AP002288

- Wisconsin Democrats Block Exoneration Seekers

- Wisconsin Dept of Justice report of the investigation and prosecution of the wrongful conviction of the exonerated Steven Avery; authored by Amy Lehmann, Deb Strauss, Dec 17 2003

- Brendan Dassey 2019 Pardon Petition, denied by Gov Tony Evers, December 2019.