"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Is Illinois Taking an Artist to Trial to Silence an Outspoken Critic or You?
"Illinois just took a big step toward bringing artist C Drew (Chris) to trial for audio recording a policeman in public. On November 22, 2010 Judge Stanley Sacks ruled the State can use the recording discovered without a warrant on Mr. Drew’s recorder as evidence to prosecute him for the crime of felony eavesdropping for recording his own arrest for selling art for $1 in Chicago."
(1 vote)
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
Fret not for this artist. He's a leftwing turd, as you can see at http://www.c-drew.com/blog/2011/02/28/1398/. In fact, for years he's been trying to foment this confrontation with his fellow statists.
http://www.copblock.org/1927/is-illinois-taking-an-artist-to-trial-to-si...
Let's see if I'm clear on your position. You're requesting that we not "fret" for a man who's facing 4-15 years in prison for recording a policeman because you don't like his political positions? I'm curious, if this is the case, do you support the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants"? Surely you don't agree with the political positions of the Guantanamo bay detainees.
The first thing that strikes me is the that it seems that virtually no one knows, in this day and age, that the true purpose and intent of First Amendment of the United States Constitution was solely to protect dissidents, individuals who spoke or wrote words "critical" of the government.
The constitutional basis for freedom of speech...can be traced directly to the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, a German immigrant who worked as a Colonial newspaper publisher.
Zenger’s newspaper, the Weekly Journal, became the center of attention when he published articles critical of the governor of New York, William Cosby. When Cosby was unsuccessful in silencing Zenger, first through threats of libel and then by more violent threats of burning his press, Cosby leveled sedition charges against him.
Zenger was arrested and tried on July 29, 1735. Zenger was acquitted and the value of free speech in America was firmly entrenched.
All this phoney-baloney "first amendment interpretation" bullsh*t was, and is, just the "smoke and mirrors" used to cloud the true meaning and intent of the First Amendment. As a result of these phoney-baloney "first amendment interpretations" the only thing the First Amendment doesn't protect is "criticism of the government". "Criticism of the government" is now labeled, by those in power, sedition, i.e. "attempts made by meetings or speeches, or by publications, to disturb the tranquility of the state."
See those three forms of "sedition"? Now read the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech [speeches], or of the press [publications]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble [meetings], and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis and bracketed information added]
The purpose and intent of the "freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of the people to peaceably assemble" clause of the First Amendment, was to protect individuals from being charged with "sedition", or "treason", when they criticized their servants in government.
If we look past the mirrors and through the smoke, the only option truly protected, for those who have "submitted themselves to the dominion of [the] government" (citizens), is "the right...to petition the government for a redress of grievances", the right to beg their master[1].
_______________________________________________________________________________
[1] PETI'TION, v.t. To make a request to; to ask from; to solicit; particularly, to make supplication to a superior for some favor or right ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
"Furthermore, as is usually, or always, true of Drew’s ilk, he argues from 1st amendment, for free speech rights, blah, blah, blah. The real issue, however, is property rights. Who owns the AV recording equipment? In fact, who owns the photons reflected from the arresting cop’s body once those photons strike your body or your video recorder?" ~ Liberal in Lakeview
To answer those questions, if one is a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, i.e. if he has "submitted [himself] to the dominion of [the] government", as, with little doubt, this person has, the following evidence is given.
March 9, 1933 – Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session: “The ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e., law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” (Repeated in: Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, February 17, 1950 page 494; Constitution for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Treaty Document 97-19, and the Communist Manifesto).