All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it. – AYN RAND
If the Supreme Court were to grant review, it would have to consider two issues: the first is whether this state-imposed fine and others like it are covered by the Eighth Amendment; if so, the second issue would be whether the fine of $464 million is excessive.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Murthy v. Missouri concerning whether the government can force or nudge private companies to censor users on behalf of regime priorities.
It bears noting that although the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling correctly asserted that abortion was a right, the ruling was nonetheless doubly botched. Justices based the ruling on a right to privacy and alleged that non-enumerated rights are based on tradition.
The case against the government here is that it cannot do through third parties such as social media platforms what it is forbidden from doing directly by virtue of the First Amendment. The case in question is popularly known as Missouri v. Biden, and there is much at stake with its results.
Were I not invited to speak in defense of Israel, none of these issues would have been raised.
Pandering to the EU to go after U.S. companies makes no sense. It needlessly cedes national sovereignty with no tangible benefits for the United States.
Whether a worker wants union representation ought to be an individual decision. The federal and state laws that turn it into a collective decision should never have been passed and after they were passed, should have been declared unconstitutional.
Leftists who have been on the forefront in denying free speech rights to those deemed politically incorrect have now begun to champion the First Amendment in defense of those who advocate the killing of Jews.
The Founding Fathers’ moral achievement in securing patents and other intellectual property rights in U.S. law.
The First Amendment gives anti-Israel protesters the right to be immoral. It gives them the right to lie and to reflect antisemitic bigotry. The First Amendment, though, also gives us the right, indeed the responsibility, to call out this immorality, mendacity, and double standard.
The decision reaffirmed what the Supreme Court called the “bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment” in 1989: “that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Historian Eric Daniels clarifies what free speech and censorship are in this inspiring talk.
Trump’s opponents believe that the reelection of President Trump would be more dangerous than compromising his constitutional rights. That is a shortsighted view that endangers future generations of Americans.
The White House, the FBI, and the CDC violated the First Amendment by encouraging and coercing social media companies to suppress free speech.
Ending the war on drugs would significantly shrink the scope of law-enforcement officers’ incentives and abilities to violate the civil and property rights of Americans – even, indeed chiefly, of Americans who do not and would never use hard drugs, be these legal or illegal.
John Locke’s view reflects the fact that a government that has nothing of its own to give, but can only give what it takes from others, means it cannot “give” to some without involuntarily violating the general welfare of others.
Preventing some individuals from making bad decisions also prevents individuals from making good decisions.
Interpreting this post-Civil War amendment as a general provision for disqualifying candidates who some people may believe participated in what they regard as an insurrection or rebellion—as distinguished from a protest or even a riot—would create yet another divisive weapon in our increasingly partisan war.
The U.S. justice system has been corrupted and weaponized. Donald Trump is just one example. This should be disconcerting to all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.
Honest businessmen, who are well aware of the importance of customer goodwill, try to insure that their businesses are not harmed by the unscrupulous actions of others. Many of them have formed voluntary associations to provide self-regulation in their industries.
If the supply of new housing is restricted by the government’s monopoly power to initiate physical force against housing producers, the market price of housing will be higher.
“No unit of government shall enact any law or regulation that compels any citizen to enter into a contract, forbids any citizen to enter into a contract, or dictates any term of a contract between citizens.”
Those responsible for the Covid response aren’t looking for amnesty or forgiveness; they seek a government structure that codifies their authoritarian impulses and a legal system that offers citizens no means of demanding accountability from their rulers. Publicly, they are searching for any “emergency” to increase their power. Privately, they are looking to put that system into law.
Another example of “Soiled by Socialism” is government-mandated low-flow water faucets, showerheads, and toilets.
The U.S. Department of Energy has just announced a proposed rule to make dishwashers more “efficient” by limiting them to a maximum of 3.3 gallons per wash cycle, a reduction of one-third.
“Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes.”
The Jones Act, the most restrictive cabotage law in the world, has decimated the number of American-flagged ships and the trade they carry, not built it up.
The moral argument for defunding the CBC is the principle that people should not be forced to fund things they disagree with.
We need to go beyond the review-and-approval paradigm. The review-and-approval model is broken, and we should find better ways to manage risk and create safety.
If we want companies to stop engaging in woke-washing, we must steer the incentives back toward supporting firms for their core offerings and stop basing our purchases according to cause-related marketing messages and social labels.
The deployment of the terms essential and nonessential, however, has no precedent in our language. This is because of a view stemming from the democratic ethos and real-world commercial experience that everyone and everything is essential to everything else.
Crushing freedom of speech is an assault on the mind, and thus on life itself.
Latest pro-Capitalism goodness sent weekly to your email box.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.