#Whitney v. California

[wheelsgoroundincircles]

Rockwell XFV-12A

Rockwell XFV-12A

by Alex Stoll

Around 1970 the Navy could not see how it was going to be able to replace its old Essex and Midway carriers with Nimitz-class supercarriers. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt directed a study of alternatives which resulted in the Sea Control Ship (SCS), a mini-carrier equipped with V/STOL fighters and ASW aircraft. The USN invited manufactures to propose demonstration programs for a new aircraft, called the V/STOL Fighter Technology Prototype, to replace the outdated Harrier and serve on the SCS or other ships much smaller than conventional carriers: BAe and MD proposed an improved Harrier and a supersonic Harrier with a PCB (Plenum-Chamber Burning) engine; Boeing and Northrop proposed jet-powered tail-sitters; Lockheed-California proposed a propeller-driven tail-sitter; and Rockwell proposed a canard-delta aircraft powered by a large and enormously powerful engine that used the ejector-lift system for V/STOL. The Navy awarded the contract to Rockwell in 1972, instead of choosing designs based on proved technology, and the XFV-12A designation (twelth in the V series, not in the F series; the F-12 was the interceptor verison of the Blackbird) was allotted. Even though the forward fuselage and landing gear of the A-4 and the wing box, air intakes, and fuel tanks of the F-4 were used to speed the program up, it still ran far behind schedule. The prototype was rolled out in December 1976 and the first flight was scheduled for 1979.

Engine Configuration For takeoff and landing, the entire engine was ducted to hollow-section "ejector flaps" (also called augmentor flaps) out along the wings and the canard by pilot command via a diverter valve box. The high-energy hot gas forced fresh air from above through the ejector flaps at a ratio of 7.5:1 to boost thrust by 70 percent. The ejector flaps could be raised or lowered to provide a smooth transition from vertical to horizontal flight or vice versa. After the XFV-12A's cancellation, de Havilland Canada designed an aircraft with ejectors build into the roots of a delta wing. GD incorporated their concept into the E-7, a F-16-based delta-winged STOVL aircraft. DHC built a large powered model and tested it in 1987. The EL system was large and control was difficult as a result of the large air mass moving through the wing root during transition, and nothing came of it (though not because the EL couldn't produce enough thrust as in the XFV-12A's case) despite the attractive low exhaust velocity.

Cancellation Rockwell and Pratt & Whitney experienced several major technical problems, and the thrust boost from the ejector flap system was never as large in the full-scale aircraft as predicted from data collected by test rigs and sub-scale models; the XFV-12A could not leave the ground. Eventually funding dried up, the SCS was canceled, and the program proved a disappointment; however, in most future ASTOVL programs, large-scale powered models were used because of the experience gained in the XFV-12A program.

[usafphantom2]

U.S. Navy awards RTX $80 million to prototype Advanced Electronic Warfare for the Super Hornet

December 19, 2023

A U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super hornet aircraft soars above the Baltic Sea Region

ADVEW will replace legacy systems with a one-box solution

GOLETA, Calif., Dec. 19, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- The United States Navy awarded Raytheon, an RTX (NYSE: RTX) Business, an $80 million contract in a down select to prototype Advanced Electronic Warfare, or ADVEW, for the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. This prototype will be considered as a replacement for the existing AN/ALQ-214 integrated defensive electronic countermeasure and AN/ALR-67(V)3 radar warning receiver with a consolidated solution that will deliver superior electronic warfare capabilities to the backbone of the Navy's carrier air wing.

"These advancements are paving the way for the next generation of electronic warfare," said Bryan Rosselli, president of Advanced Products & Solutions at Raytheon. "We are completely replacing and consolidating the legacy systems into a one-box solution that will deliver a generational refresh to the electronic warfare capability for the lifetime of the Super Hornet."

Raytheon's Advanced Electronic Warfare offering will provide significant performance upgrades by modernizing existing electronic warfare systems into fewer components and incorporating government-defined open architecture. Development of this new solution will closely align and integrate with other combat-proven, radio frequency sensors and effectors employed by the Super Hornet. ADVEW will ensure F/A-18E/Fs maintain their operational electronic warfare advantage, while significantly improving survivability against advanced, complex threats.

Development and testing of ADVEW will mainly take place in Goleta, California. During the prototype phase, the system will undergo preliminary design review, critical design review, and flight testing over a 36-month period.

About Raytheon

Raytheon, an RTX business, is a leading provider of offensive and defense solutions to help the U.S. government, our allies and partners defend their national sovereignty and ensure their security. For more than 100 years, Raytheon has developed new technologies and enhanced existing capabilities in integrated air and missile defense, smart weapons, missiles, advanced sensors and radars, offensive and defensive cybersecurity tools, interceptors, space-based systems, hypersonics and missile defense across land, air, sea and space.

About RTX

RTX is the world's largest aerospace and defense company. With more than 180,000 global employees, we push the limits of technology and science to redefine how we connect and protect our world. Through industry-leading businesses – Collins Aerospace, Pratt & Whitney, and Raytheon – we are advancing aviation, engineering integrated defense systems for operational success, and developing next-generation technology solutions and manufacturing to help global customers address their most critical challenges. The company, with 2022 sales of $67 billion, is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

For questions or to schedule an interview, please contact corporatepr@rtx.com

SOURCE RTX

@AirPowerNew1 via X

[rococo444]

“men feared witches and burnt women”

- justice brandeis, whitney v. california (1927)

[jedirhydon]

Armament: 8 x Dual Heavy Turbolaser Turrets, 2 x Duel Medium Turbolaser Cannons, 52 - 60 Point-Defense Laser Cannons, 4 x Heavy Proton Torpedo Launchers, 6 x Heavy Tractor Beam Projectors, 1 x Ventral mounted Beam-weapon, 6 or more x Deck Guns.

Length: 1,155 meters.

Height: 249 meters.

Crew: 9,400 (7,400 x Officers, Enlisted Crew, Pilots, 2,000 x Troopers).

Complement: 192 x V-19 Torrent Fighters/Alpha-3 Nimbus-Class V-wing Star Fighters, 192 x Delta-7 or Delta-7B Aethersprite-class Light Interceptors/Eta-2 Actis-class Interceptors, 36 x ARC-170 Starfighters, Unknown x Clone Wars era Z-95 Head Hunter Starfighters, 24 x AT-TE Walkers, 40 x LAAT/i Gunships, Unknown x Other/Landing crafts.

Shielding: Equipped.

Nav Computer: Equipped.

Hyperdrive: Class 1 with a class 15 as a backup.

Engines: 10.

The Venator-class Star Destroyer Cruiser Protector served as the flagship of the 101st Fleet and the personal command ship of Jedi Knight/General Rhydon Kenobi and Fleet Admiral Whitney Thomas. The Protector, like her sister ship, the Peace of the 82nd Attack Fleet, boasted the Sapphire Blue colors of the 101st Legion rather than the standard crimson red colors of the Republic Navy and was always seen leading the 101st Fleet from the front. Because of the leading from the front belief of the Protector's commanding officers, many in the 101st Fleet would find inspiration, and many ships would follow behind their flagship, eager to see the mission through. Throughout the war, The Protector would be home to many individuals in the 101st Legion, from Rhydon Kenobi and his wives: Zarina Kenobi, Taylor Smith, and Sierra Sommers, to Rhydon Kenobi's padawan Zayla Secura, Admiral Whitney Thomas, ARC Commander Zeus, and many others.

Continuing to fight through the Clone Wars, the Protector would see action through battles such as Christophsis, Ryloth, Geonosis, Saleucami, Kamino, Sullust, Umbara, Ringo Vinda, Anaxes, Coruscant, and Mandalore. Through each battle, the Protector was flanked by the Venator Battleships North Carolina, Washington, Arizona II, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, California, Tennessee, Nevada, Oklahoma II, Venator Carriers Enterprise, Yorktown II, Hornet II, Wasp II, and Venator Cruisers Baltimore, Bremerton, Arquitens Light Cruisers Brooklyn and St. Louis, Aspis Destroyer Laffey, and Aiwha-class Stealth Ship Nautilus. An aspect of the Protector that made it an impressive ship was the customization that Rhydon Kenobi and Whitney Thomas put into the ship; not only did the cruiser possess a unique color scheme related to its Jedi commander, but the Protector also boasted an advanced shield, armor, and a better weapons system, than most Venator cruisers. This amount of customization to the Protector was seen by many as unnecessary, but Rhydon Kenobi and Admiral Thomas stood by their decision to increase the ship’s combat capabilities.

The downfall of the Flagship Protector would come from several of the final battles of the Clone Wars, in which the ship’s shields were weakened and her armor damaged. This weakened state would come to be stressed to its limit in the Battle of Coruscant, where despite the Protector being kept in the rear of the battle for once, she would still be struck by enemy fire in the battle. Following the Battle of Coruscant, Rhydon and Admiral Whitney recognized that the Protector would more than likely not survive another battle without extensive repairs, but the need to deploy the remaining ships of the 101st Fleet to Mandalore had forced them to put repairs on hold. Rhydon and Whitney’s decision was due to the remaining half of the 101st Fleet, as well as the 332nd Armada, were already at Mandalore, performing a siege operation against the forces of Darth Maul and the Dark Acolyte Zolan Chan.

Upon their arrival at Mandalore, Rhydon had Admiral Whitney transfer any important equipment, as well as any personal items, to anyone aboard the Protector, onto the Enterprise while he led the ground forces to the planet's surface. This would prove beneficial when Order 66 was initiated, causing several clone crew members to turn against the Jedi leadership. Fortunately, the crew of the Protector, and consequently the Enterprise, and several other important 101st Fleet ships, were loyal to the Jedi and refused to follow Order 66, but this would, however, put a massive target on them, as the ships that were going through with the Order, turned on them. As it was, the Protector was situated in the middle of the Fleet formation, and while a good number of the surrounding ships were Jedi loyal, several ships weren't, thus leading to the 101st flagship being fired upon, causing her already weakened state to be further stressed to the breaking point.

Although Admiral Whitney did her best to keep order on the Protector, she would be forced to order the crew and all other clones and personnel aboard to evacuate the cruiser and quickly make her way to an escape pod. In the end, this would come to be the best choice, as the Protector would explode in a massive fireball as the escape pods and vessels made their way to any nearby Jedi loyal ships, the majority of them, including Admiral Whitney's pod, made their way to the Enterprise. Admiral Whitney Thomas would meet up with Commodore Wilhelm Halsey, who served as the commander of the Enterprise, and Jedi General Rhydon Kenobi, who had returned from the planet's surface after being rescued by female clone troopers, alongside his apprentice Zayla Secura, wife Zarina, and the Jedi loyal male clone troopers. After this, the Venator-class Star Destroyer Carrier Enterprise would take up the torch as the new flagship of the 101st Fleet, continuing to honor the legacy of the Venator-class Star Destroyer Cruiser Flagship Protector.

[ipconsultinggroup-1]

🎯 Sony Music agrees to end lawsuit over Whitney Houston movie

On November 18, Sony Music Entertainment informed a federal court in California that it would withdraw its lawsuit against the producers and investors of the 2022 film Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody. The lawsuit alleged that 24 of Houston's iconic songs were used in the movie without proper authorization.

In a court filing, Sony stated that the case would be dismissed "with prejudice," meaning it cannot be refiled. Last month, both parties indicated they had reached a settlement but required additional time to finalize the agreement. Representatives and attorneys for either side did not immediately comment on the matter.

Houston, who passed away in 2012, signed with Arista Records in 1983—a label now under Sony Music. The lawsuit, filed in February, claimed that Sony had licensed Houston’s music to Anthem Films for the biopic and soundtrack. Although the movie was released in 2022 and earned nearly $60 million globally, Sony alleged that Anthem failed to pay the agreed licensing fees for tracks like I Wanna Dance With Somebody, How Will I Know, and I Will Always Love You.

Sony alleged that Anthem had promised payment after receiving funds owed by the state of Massachusetts but later declined to sign a repayment agreement, citing other contractual obligations with additional defendants.

The lawsuit sought at least $3.6 million in damages and a court order to prevent further infringement. However, the defendants did not respond to the allegations in court. The case, titled Sony Music Entertainment v. Anthem Films LLC, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under case number 2:24-cv-01250.

Sony was represented by David Steinberg and Yakub Hazzard of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, while the defendants were represented by Ashley Yeargan of Russ August & Kabat and Lincoln Bandlow.

Contact Us DC: +1 (202) 666-8377 MD: +1 (240) 477-6361 FL +1 (239) 292–6789 Website: https://www.ipconsultinggroups.com/ Mail: protect@ipconsultinggroups.com Headquarters: 9009 Shady Grove Ct. Gaithersburg, MD 20877 Branch Office: 7734 16th St, NW Washington DC 20012 Branch Office: Vanderbilt Dr, Bonita Spring, FL 34134

[williamzafravelasco]

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (Brandeis, J.), overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

[sojournertales]

Excerpt from Mr. Justice Brandies' concuring statement in Whitney v. California, concerning free speech.

Starting at Page 274 U. S. 375:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. [Footnote 2] 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.

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. [Footnote 3] Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger, it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. [Footnote 4] Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.

Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society. A police measure may be unconstitutional merely because the remedy, although effective as means of protection, is unduly harsh or oppressive. Thus, a State might, in the exercise of its police power, make any trespass upon the land of another a crime, regardless of the results or of the intent or purpose of the trespasser. It might, also, punish an attempt, a conspiracy, or an incitement to commit the trespass. But it is hardly conceivable that this Court would hold constitutional a statute which punished as a felony the mere voluntary assembly with a society formed to teach that pedestrians had the moral right to cross unenclosed, unposted, wastelands and to advocate their doing so, even if there was imminent danger that advocacy would lead to a trespass. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly.

[leviathangourmet]

A 2020 article published by a World Health Organization-affiliated medical doctor in Nepal gains new relevance in light of the recent disclosure that the Biden administration’s FBI worked with a Ukrainian spy agency to take down social media posts that Ukraine considered “spreading Russian disinformation.” The “woke” leftists’ ambition to censor as “disinformation” any communication they consider harmful to their neo-Marxist agenda may well be just the first step to designating as “mentally ill” any dissenter to their views who dares to exercise free speech rights under the First Amendment.

In a 2020 article entitled “Information Disorder Syndrome and its Management,” published in the Journal of Nepal Medical Association, Nirmal Kandal, a member of the Nepal Medical Association, argued that there were three grades to the psychological disorder of sharing or developing “false information.”

Grade 1: in which the individual “shares false information without the intent of harming others.”

Grade 2: a moderate form of psychological disorder in which “the individual develops and shares false information with the intent of making money and political gain, but not with the intent of harming people.”

Grade 3: a severe form “in which the individual develops and shares false information with the intent of harming others.”

Kandal suggested that “all sufferers from grade 2 and 3 levels need psycho-social counseling and sometimes require strong regulations and enforcement to control such information disorder.” As an example of the type of speech he wanted to suppress, Kandal signaled out the “anti-vaxxer movement,” whose members he believed members were rightfully arrested for warning people that the vaccines themselves could be harmful to health. If you were wondering, Kindal works in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) headquarters heading the WHO’s Evidence and Analytics for Heath Security (EHS) Unit.

At the heart of this debate is the legal theory of prior restraint on speech, a very narrow limitation on the First Amendment’s prohibition against government censorship. In light of the WHO’s speech preferences, which Democrats indicate they want to embrace, the issue is when the government can bypass the First Amendment to restrain speech and possibly persecute anticipated speech because the anticipated publication or speech is somehow unacceptably harmful.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), arose when Anita Whitney, a member of the Communist Labor Party, was convicted in 1920 under the California Syndicalism Act. The act made it a felony to become a member of an organization that “organized or assembled to advocate, teach or aid and abet criminal syndicalism.” “Criminal syndicalism,” in turn, was any doctrine or precept advocating, teaching or aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, sabotage,” or other acts of terrorism for accomplishing changes in industrial ownership or “effecting any political change.” The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

Justice Brandeis wrote a concurring opinion (joined by Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes) acknowledging that the First Amendment free speech right was not absolute. While he agreed with the decision’s outcome under the specific facts of the case, he wanted to set out very clearly the narrow parameters of prior restraint laws. To limit speech, he insisted that the danger presented must be immediate, likely, and substantial:

This Court has not yet fixed the standard by which to determine when a danger shall be deemed clear; how remote the danger may be and yet be deemed present, and what degree of evil shall be deemed sufficiently substantial to justify resort to abridgement of free speech and assembly as the means of protection.

Brandeis pointed out that those exercising their speech rights could be the ones who were correct because the government policy could, in fact, be misguided:

But serious injury alone cannot justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe the danger is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be presented is a serious one.

Notably, in the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the Supreme Court rejected the Nixon administration’s prior restraint argument that prohibiting the Times from publishing was necessary to prevent a presumed national security crisis. Daniel Ellsberg did create a national security crisis, but not the one the administration argued flowed from publication. Instead, he exposed the lies the U.S., and in particular the Pentagon, had told the American public about the Vietnam War.

That today’s woke neo-Marxist left wants to define dissenting speech as a psychological disease owes much to the Frankfurt School, in particular to Herbert Marcuse. In 1965, Marcuse published an essay entitled “Repressive Tolerance” that concluded, “the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.” Marcuse took the next leap, jumping right into the subject of thought control:

More than ever, the proposition holds true that progress in freedom demands progress in the consciousness of freedom. Where the mind has been made into a subject-object of politics and policies, intellectual autonomy, the realm of “pure” thought has become a matter of political education (or rather: counter-education).

Woke neo-Marxists are today’s totalitarians. In the Maoist cultural revolution that commands our universities, refusing to accept gender self-determination is banned as sexist, just as failing to see America as a country created by slaveholders to perpetuate slavery is banned as racist, and questioning global warming is tantamount to putting the planet at risk. So, too, as the neo-Marxist left dominates the federal bureaucracy, daring to question election integrity was tantamount to treason in 2020, and questioning the efficacy of vaccinations was tantamount to endangering your neighbor’s health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they [those who won our independence] eschewed silence,” Brandeis concluded in Whitney v. California, confident that truth was fundamental. How will we know whether they (the mentally ill) are in the right unless we are free to debate the issues? Without free speech, the standards of justice quickly become political.

[you-are-all-weirdos]

"Fire in a crowded theater" is a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes's opinion in Schenck v United States from 1919. This established the standard that the State could punish speech when the speech in question was "of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

This was, more or less, the legal standard under which free speech cases were judged until Ohio v Brandenburg in 1969. Sure, you had cases like Whitney v California in the meantime, but they were by and large in line with Schenck.

Ohio v Brandenburg gave us the Brandenburg Test, which states that the prosecution must prove that the defendant's speech is likely to cause lawless action, that they harboured an intent to do so, and that the lawless action was imminent.

I go over this a little more thoroughly here.

For that matter, Ken White of Popehat fame talked about Brandenburg on his podcast Make No Law in this episode. He also covered Schenck here.

I've always adored the argument of the crowded theater stifling speech- primarily because that very example and logic, when put into its historical context, were said by a judge who ruled that passing out anti-WW1 pamphlets (what the accused did. They didn't even riot!) was not protected under free speech. This whole ruling would be tossed into the trash years later, and they would cite it be specifically because it is not a sufficient enough excuse or argument to hinder speech.

It's just. mind-boggling how bad it is. How they're using a statist argument and they don't even know it. To think such a statement as common sense would be as unreasonable now as back in 1917.

Do you have any links about this? I'd like to read more about it (specifically this article without having to sign up for anything), but my understanding is that speech that incites panic or encourages people to commit crimes is technically irrelevant to the 1st amendment because the laws that punish those things aren't punishing the speech, but the act of trying to incite panic or criminal activity. I could be way off. I don't really know where to find trustworthy information about this since I've come across way too many "legal experts" who twist the law to fit what they want it to say and not what it actually says.

[you-are-all-weirdos]

Burn, Baby, Burn

Next time you hear someone bring up the phrase "fire in a crowded theater," please ask if that means they support the draft.

See, that’s what that quote refers to. Schenck v. United States was a case in which Charles Schenck of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Pennsylvania mailed letters to men who were going to be drafted urging them to refuse to serve. He felt that it was immoral to force men who did not wish to fight into uniform. That it, in fact, constituted slavery.

That is the kind of speech being argued against by that phrase. So does our hypothetical censor favour the draft?

And, by the way, the full quote is this: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes wasn’t saying “this is a limit on freedom of speech, therefore there are limits on freedom of speech, therefore it’s okay to arrest people from hurting my feelings.” Let’s be clear: regardless of how you feel about conscription, Charles Schenck was telling people to break the law. Justice Holmes’s famous quote means “free speech shouldn’t protect people from saying things that will cause people to commit harmful acts.”

And he was wrong.

Or... maybe not exactly wrong. He was overly broad. “Don’t say things that might lead to harmful acts” sounds good in principle, and it’s probably something we should hold to in our day-to-day lives, but as a matter of law it’s a nightmare. I mean... do we start arresting people for saying “be gay, do crimes” on the grounds that they’re encouraging lawless acts?

That’s where questions of intent, of imminence, and likelihood comes in. Did you mean to cause someone to do something illegal, would the things you said cause someone to do something illegal right now, and could you have possibly known that the things you said would actually cause someone to commit a crime. 

See, it’s not enough to say things that might inspire people to do bad things. If I say I think anyone who tries to order drive thru from the passenger seat is subhuman, that doesn’t rise to the level of a crime. Is it hateful? Sure. It might even be a genuine expression of deep and abiding animus. But I haven’t directed anyone to do anything unlawful, nor would anyone reasonable expect that statement to result in such acts.

If I turned around and said that guy thinks that putting grated mozzarella on gravy fries turns it into a poutine. Let’s hang him from a lamp pole... well, now we’re getting closer. I’ve said we should do it now, and my statement constitutes a clear set of instructions. If I then actually try to string our hypothetical heathen up, then that makes proving intent much easier... because that’s the third question. Did I actually mean to cause people to commit a crime? I might have been joking.

This set of criteria is called the Brandenburg Test. It was established by the case Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which at least partially overturned Schenck.

A lot of the time, the kind of person who uses “fire in a crowded theater” is arguing that they should be able to ban speech that they think is harmful whether it constitutes a sincere and direct call to action or not. To prohibit “utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of” whatever particular flavour of social order they prefer.

Did that look like a quote? That’s because it was. It’s from the Supreme Court’s decision in Whitney v. California in 1927. Charlotte Anita Whitney had been arrested for her part in founding the Communist Labor Party of America. 

The state asserted that Whitney’s party was trying to teach people to violently overthrow the government. Whitney insisted she was doing nothing of the sort, that she simply wanted to teach people what she thought was a better way that the country might be run. In the end, the Supreme Court decided that it didn’t matter if she was actually inciting people to violent revolt; simply spreading Communist ideas would create an environment in which violence was more likely and thus must be made illegal.

Sound familiar? Remove “Communist” and substitute “racist” or “fascist” or “right wing” and see if that doesn’t ring any bells.

The good news is that the United States has already heard that argument. It’s not new and it’s not unique to any particular point on the political spectrum. And not only has the US heard that argument, it’s since rejected it.

So yes. There are limits on free speech in the United States... but they are, and should always be narrowly limited in order to prevent their abuse. And if you think it’s okay to pry those limits open wider because you’re only going to use them against people you disagree with, then I’m sorry, but you clearly have no sense of history.

[tototavros]

[Those who won our independence] valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine, that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.

[loganvok]

Whitney v. California [1927], Justice Brandeis writing

If there be time to expose through discussion  the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

[beardedmrbean]

Democratic politicians and their allies in the media have come under scrutiny for incendiary rhetoric in regard to the Supreme Court, protests, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who recently came under threat of violence from an armed man. 

Nicholas John Roske, 26, of Simi Valley, California, had a gun, ammunition, a knife, pepper spray, a screwdriver, zip ties, and other gear when he was arrested by Montgomery County Police Wednesday morning, according to a criminal complaint.

The media reacted in a variety of different ways to the news, but members never highlighted their own instances of charged language as a possible motivator for the assassination attempt. 

CNN’s Whitney Wild, following news of the attempt on Kavanaugh’s life, said that Supreme Court justices "certainly" could be at threat from violent extremists in the coming months. However, Wild asserted that the risk of violence "truly comes from both sides of the abortion debate." Kavanaugh has frequently been painted as bent on overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade case. 

ALLEGED KAVANAUGH ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT LATEST INSTANCE OF VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION TOWARD PRO-LIFERS

Speaking with Fox News Digital, media analyst and contributor Joe Concha called the media disinterest in Kavanaugh’s attacker both "sad and pathetic."

"If a Republican senator or lawmaker had attacked a liberal Justice like Sotomayor or Kagan or Jackson, declared without ambiguity that ‘they will pay the price,’ it is virtually guaranteed you would see wall-to-wall coverage if an attempt was made on their lives," he said, referring to then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's, D-N.Y., comments in 2020 about conservative justices, including Kavanaugh.

On Thursday, ABC’s "The View" host Whoopi Goldberg criticized the heated political rhetoric of "both sides."

"But in this climate, don't we all have to, like, take a beat and really pay attention from both sides? Because we both are guilty of it. Both sides are guilty of doing this," Goldberg said. "There are consequences to what you say, and you should be more careful."

PRO-CHOICE ACTIVISTS PROTEST IN FRONT OF KAVANAUGH’S HOME AFTER MAN ARRESTED FOR THREATENING TO KILL HIM

During a floor speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the "reckless" and "apocalyptic" rhetoric from media critics since the SCOTUS draft leak was responsible for the incident and called for tighter security. 

During an interview on "America Reports" Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas said the Kavanaugh incident highlights the urgency to pass the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which would bolster privacy protections for federal judges and impose restrictions on the sale or dissemination of federal judges’ personal information, with criminal penalties.

"I think that members of Congress can see the escalation in the numbers of threats against judicial officers," she told host John Roberts. "It’s just got to stop."

Salas’ 20-year-old son Daniel was killed in a racially motivated attack on her New Jersey home nearly two years ago. The man responsible was upset over her handling of a case. 

Journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted Wednesday that it was "vital" to determine which "cable hosts" the armed assailant liked in order to figure out "who radicalized him." He then called out MSNBC's Joy Reid by name. 

"We don’t yet know if this would-be Kavanaugh murderer watches Joy Reid’s show — chances are very high he didn’t since virtually nobody does — but she regularly calls the Justice a Christian nationalist who favors theocracy. Did this inspire violence?" Greenwald tweeted. 

Past rhetoric from some politicians and members of the media has done little to turn down the temperature in an already volatile political climate, particularly around the Supreme Court and abortion. 

"This did not take place in a political vacuum, Democrats have a years-long effort to delegitimize and demonize the Supreme Court, through vile obstruction of nominations, as happened with Justice Kavanaugh, and threats to pack the court," Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson said when discussing the topic with Fox News Digital. "That an unhinged activist would act violently against this backdrop was not surprising."

He added that the political rhetoric from Democrats, circulating a judge’s address on the internet and organizing protests outside their homes "posed a substantial risk of violence."

PRO-LIFE GROUP SAYS KAVANAUGH'S ALLEGED WOULD-BE ASSASSIN 'ACTED' ON SCHUMER'S WORDS

In addition, The Department of Homeland Security issued a warning on Tuesday that the high court's abortion ruling, the ongoing immigration crisis, and the midterm elections, could lead to domestic extremist violence. 

In May, Law and Policy senior editor Imani Gandy joined CNN Newsroom, where she said of the leaked opinion draft: "I hope there will be a national uprising, but I’m concerned that the stomach for that isn’t there."

"The View’s" Joy Behar was particularly enthusiastic about pro-choice protesters surrounding the homes of SCOTUS justices, forcing them to stay inside. She said last month that protesters blocking Justice Samuel Alito from leaving his home would show him "what it feels like to lose your freedom of choice."

"He cannot leave the house easily. So maybe that's a good lesson for them," she added.

Far-left comedian Samantha Bee, during her TBS show last month, mocked conservatives calling for civility and urging people not to unnecessarily dial up the tension as protesters repeatedly lined up outside the homes of justices. 

"In my civilest way possible may I humbly request that you f--- the f--- off? How dare Republicans demand civility as they strip away our civil rights," she said. 

In December, Vice President Kamala Harris told the San Francisco Chronicle, "I don’t want to sound alarmist, I mean this: Women will die."

Hillary Clinton tweeted on May 2 that the decision "will kill and subjugate women even as a vast majority of Americans think abortion should be legal."

The media and politicians have also specifically targeted Kavanaugh in their political rants, particularly in the aftermath of his wrenching confirmation hearings when he denied Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegation.

In a now infamous clip, a 2020 Schumer angrily singled out Justices Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. 

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price," he said at a rally for pro-choice supporters. 

In 2018, late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel also dug into Kavanaugh. He told his audience it was only fair that if the then-nominee was elevated to the nation’s high court, then it was only fair he should have his "pesky penis"chopped off. 

[bunnywand]

ellie listens to the top 50 best-selling albums of all time: 10-1

i did it, i finished them all!! 🥳 so for these ones, the dark side of the moon, rumours, back in black, hotel california + their greatest hits were the albums i already knew 🤔 tbh i’d also listened to thriller before, but i couldn’t rly do this whole thing and then not talk abt the number 1 album 😅 so..

led zeppelin - led zeppelin iv: when i was younger i tried several times to get into led zeppelin, and i had listened to this album b4 but.. they just never did anything for me?? 😕 i kinda like “black dog” cos part of it plays in weird al’s “trapped in the drive thru” which i listened to Way too many times when i was a kid first on the internet, and “rock and roll” is okay altho i Much prefer stevie nicks’ cover it it 😅 i’m p sure the main draw of this album is supposed to be “stairway to heaven” tho but.. idk?? it just doesn’t do anything for me at all 😔

bee gees / various artists - saturday night fever: i was surprised how much i liked this one, considering i’d never listened to the bee gees or seen the film this is for b4!! i love “how deep is your love” but i never knew it was the bee gees, and i rly like “more than a woman” too!! the rest of the ~various artists~ songs were p good too, so this was a p fun listen!! ☺️

whitney houston / various artists - the bodyguard: i like whitney houston, but i’ve never especially liked “i will always love you” v much 😔 the rest of this album was a nice enough listen tho, “i’m every woman” is obvs gr8, and of the other tracks, “it’s gonna be a lovely day” by s.o.u.l. s.y.s.t.e.m. was definitely my fav!! probably not one i’ll listen to again any time soon, but more enjoyable than other albums i’ve listened to in this list 😅

shania twain - come on over: i like “that don’t impress me much” and “man! i feel like a woman!” as well as a few other of her hits that aren’t on this album, but this album as a whole didn’t rly do much for me 😔 it’s the same case as the celine dion’s albums earlier in the list, it wasn’t a bad listen, but a whole hour long album of shania twain is probably more than i ever needed to listen to 😭

michael jackson - thriller: and so here’s number one!! obviously i knew the majority of songs from here already and i mean like, w/ “billie jean,” “thriller” and “beat it” alone, of Course this is number one 🤯 definitely deserving of it too, and i think my fav discovery from it was “the girl is mine” cos whenever i last listened to this, i don’t think i was as into paul mccartney 😅

and that’s a wrap!! it’s been a p fun project listening 2 all these, and i’ve definitely discovered a few artists i hadn’t listened to b4 who i’ll have to look more into now.. 👀 and like i already posted abt, at some point i might go back and listen to the other albums on wikipedia’s list, cos there’s 77 on there in total and obvs i only did the top 50 🤯 but i’ll probs have a lil break b4 i do those, cos this already took quite a while 😝

[mego42]

music tag

tagged by @sothischickshe (💖) to play this unexpectedly difficult game

1. Your favourite song at the moment: i’ve been feeling think about it by TOMI on a cellular level recently. long time coming is a close second. 

2. A song you associate with a favourite character or ship: speaking of cellular level, thanks to @storyskein i will associate belly of the deepest love by tow’rs with bellarke until the day i die

3. A song that could be about you: whitney houston’s so emotional hahaha

4. A song you think is overrated: everything the beatles ever released with the exception of i’ve just seen a face

5. A song that reminds you of a specific memory: little more time by zox. mr meg and i have taken a couple of cross country roadtrips and on our first one, we decided to go from madison, WI to the california side of lake tahoe without stopping to sleep (1900 miles, for reference. it was a highly questionable decision i do not endorse from an adult perspective) and i vividly remember driving through the rocky mountains in the middle of the night playing this song on a literal nonstop loop for probably like 2 hours bc it was the only thing that could keep me awake.

6. Last song you listened to: save us by lennon stella, samples time after time a little kind of (does it count as a sample if it’s not literally a clip from the song? idk) i’m v into it

7. A song that makes you laugh: the gourds cover of gin n juice

8. A song you want your mutuals to listen to: any of the songs linked here with the exception of the zox song bc i don’t actually like it that much, it was on a mix tape i stole from my sister.

tagging @nickmillerscaulk @raincityruckus @pynkhues @sanssssastark @dragonturtle @missmaxime

[catchyoulaterhotdog]

now playing skateaway ▶

Side A:  I. Sk8r boi, Avril Lavigne II. I will follow you into the dark, Death Cab for Cutie III. Rebels, Call Me Karizma IV. I was an island, John-Allison Weiss V. Little lion man, Mumford & Sons VI. I want to break free, Queen VII. Skateaway, Dire Straits VIII. Teenage runaway, The Blue Van IX. On melancholy hill, Gorillaz X. Video killed the radio star, The Buggles XI. Strawberry blond, Mitski XII. Dreams, The Cranberries XIII. Cult of dionysus, The Orion Experience XIV. Vienna, Billy Joel XV. Talk too much, COIN XVI. The suburbs, Arcade Fire XVII. Something I need, OneRepublic XXVIII. The other side of hollywood, The Hollywood Ghost Club XIX. Something to believe in, Young the Giant XX. All i’ve ever known, Eva Noblezada XXI. The only exception, Paramore XXII. Paul, Big Thief XXIII. Problems, Mother Mother XXIV. Moscow, Autoheart XXV. Nobody, Mitski XXVI. Can I call you tonight? , Dayglow XXVII. Hey there Delilah, Plain White T’s XXVIII. Teenage Dream, Katy Perry XXIX. Feel good inc., Gorillaz XXX. That’s what you get, Paramore XXXI. What you know, Two Door Cinema Club XXXII. It’s raining men, Geri Halliwell XXXIII. Humility, Gorillaz XXXIV. I’m a believer, Smashmouth XXXV. Take on me, a-ha

Side B:  I. Africa, TOTO II. I’m still standing, Elton John III. I wanna dance with somebody (who loves me), Whitney Houston IV. Holding out for a hero, Bonnie Tyler V. Uptown girl, Billy Joel VI. Come on Eileen, Dexys Midnight Runners VII. Teenager in love, Neon Trees VIII. Mr. blue sky, Electric Light Orchestra  IX. Animal, Neon Trees X. Gimme love, Vista Kicks XI. Dance with me, Sir, Please XII. Right back where we started from, Army Navy XIII. Stay the Night, Jukebox the Ghost XIV. Electric love, BORNS XV. Paper rings, Taylor Swift XVI. Blinding lights, The Weeknd  XVII. Hotel California, Eagles XXVIII. Check yes, Juliet, We the Kings XIX. Another brick in the wall (Pt. 2) , Pink Floyd XX. Undeniable You, Jukebox the Ghost XXI. In case you don’t live forever, Ben Platt XXII. Somebody to you, The Vamps XXIII. I was made for lovin’ you, KISS XXIV. Born to be wild, Steppenwolf XXV. Waterloo, ABBA XXVI. Take a chance on me, ABBA XXVII. Accidentally in love, Counting Crows XXVIII. Man or Muppet, Jason Segel XXIX. Don’t go breaking my heart, Elton John and Kiki Dee XXX. I believe in a thing called love, tiLLie XXXI. Stop desire, Tegan and Sara XXXII. Hey Mickey, Toni Basil XXXIII. I think we’re alone now, Billie Joe Armstrong and Green Day XXXIV. Share your address, Ben Platt XXXV. Fred Astaire, Jukebox the Ghost XXXVI. Everybody’s Lonely, Jukebox the Ghost XXXVII. Shut up and kiss me, Marianas Trench