Pro-Liberty News and Opinion | Libertarian Voluntaryist

digitaljournal.com:

This video, from the dashboard camera of a police vehicle, shows a man being shot with a taser gun by a police officer for arguing over a speeding ticket and not signing said ticket.

[...]

There are many incidents of people dying after receiving taser shocks, so such action should only be taken as a replacement for deadly force, which was not necessary in this case. The man just wanted proof that he was speeding before he signed the ticket.  

 digg it| shout it | reddit 

Mark and Debra Kuhn of Asheville, North Carolina were arrested and charged with assault on a government employee, obstruction and flag desecration.

The Kuhns were flying a flag upside down on their own property with signs pinned to it explaining why it was being flown in that manner: being upside down represents a sign of distress. A picture of George W. Bush was also pinned to the flag with the text “Out Now” printed underneath. The Kuhns apparently desecrated the flag by pinning signs to it, not by flying it upside down.

According to the Sheriff’s office, deputy Scarborough informed the couple that they were illegally displaying the flag and attempted to issue Mr. Kuhn with a citation. Kuhn allegedly refused to show I.D. and slammed the door on Scarborough’s hand causing a glass pane to break, which cut the deputy’s hand.

The Kuhns have a different story to tell. They claim that they shut and locked the door and that Scarborough intentionally broke the glass with his fist in order to reach in and unlock the door. He then proceeded to enter their home, without a warrant or permission, and placed them under arrest.

Flag desecration is protected under the First Amendment of the constitution as free speech; a fact that is supported by two U.S. Supreme Court cases. Any law prohibiting it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Mark Radford, the National Guardsman who issued the complaint about the flag, does not seem to care about the Supreme Court or the constitution he swore to uphold.

“The law is the law, and if we don’t follow the rule of the law as a society, where does it go from here?” he asked.

Ever heard of civil disobedience Mr. Radford? A principle employed by Samuel Adams and many others in the founding of our country. A principle exploited by Martin Luther King Jr. in his quest for civil rights. Have you learned about the Boston Tea Party? How about the Revolutionary War? Does any of this mean anything to you?

When there are bad laws, they need to be broken and any law — whether constitutional or not — that restricts free speech is a bad law. Civil Disobedience and Jury Nullification are the last strings for citizens to grab at if they wish to change the laws that oppress them. That is, after all, how the prohibition of alcohol was essentially ended.

I would like to personally thank the Kuhns for standing up for their rights and subsequently the rights of every citizen of this country. If we lose the right to free speech, unpopular being the most difficult to protect, then we really have no rights at all. Expression is the most essential human freedom.

digg it | shout it

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq:

On July 17, 2007 elected Federal Bureaucrat George W. Bush issued an executive order declaring that he and other members of the federal government have the right to seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The vague, far-reaching language in the order does not name any specific groups that the rules apply to. This means that protester can now have their property seized for “undermining” efforts to promote “political reform” in Iraq.

The definition of undermine according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: un·der·mine

1 : to excavate the earth beneath : form a mine under : SAP
2 : to wash away supporting material from under
3 : to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly
4 : to weaken or ruin by degrees

Definitions three and four seem to be most fitting for the language of the bill — unless we are somehow “excavating earth” beneath ideas. Can protests “subvert or weaken” “economic reconstruction” or “political reform”? What about writing anti-war blogs, articles, or letters? It seems as though the answer is ‘Yes’ which means that this order is a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Not to mention the First Amendment which guarantees the right to free speech. But I guess these amendments only apply when you aren’t talking about Iraq. So much for protecting unpopular speech.

Examining this and the executive order that allows Bush to declare himself dictator of the US if there is a ‘national emergency’ reveals that we are sliding down a slippery slope towards tyranny and it needs to stop. A great step towards achieving this goal would be eliminating Executive Orders all together. They give the president the de-facto authority to pass laws without proper approval from congress which seems to be direct a violation of the constitution in the first place.

Why do we even have the constitution if the bureaucrats do not need to follow it? In recent decades it has been reduced to nothing more than an inked piece of parchment with slight sentimental significance. It seems as though the people are compliant as long as they believe they are protected by the constitution. The fact that it truly means nothing anymore seems to be lost on the masses.

shout it

On May 24 Brian D. Kelly of Carlisle, Pennsylvania was arrested for violating a state wiretapping law. Kelly, 18, videotaped police officers during a routine traffic stop. His camera was immediately confiscated and he was taken to jail. He spent 26 hours in county prison until his mother posted her house as collateral for his $2,500 bail.

What act was Mr. Kelly perpetrating in which the ‘great’ state of Pennsylvania saw as wiretapping?

Well, it turns out that there is an obscure state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone’s oral conversation without their consent.  The arrest apparently relates to the sound that Kelly’s camera picked up, not the video.

Some people would claim that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’, but I would have to whole-heartedly disagree.  How could someone possibly know that it is illegal to record an on-duty officer while on public property?  It is not a law that one would assume exists based on common sense, such as murder or theft. 

The only way that Kelly could have possibly known about this law would be if he actually read it.  But lets be realistic, it could not honestly be expected that every citizen reads the tomes of laws that are passed, on state, local, and federal levels, every year,  a process which would likely take an entire lifetime.

Kelly said that if he knew about this law before the incident occurred he would not have recorded the officers. What he does not seem to understand is that this is a law that does not make any sense and is blatantly unconstitutional.  And bad laws, quite frankly, are meant to be broken.

Let me remind you of the text of the fourth amendment.  It reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”  The word unreasonable allows for some gray area, but I am sure that most people (a jury of our peers, perhaps) would agree that it was unreasonable for the police to take his camera. 

The only ‘crime’ Kelly is guilty of is recording the officers doing their jobs, an act that should never be illegal in a free society.  Is it not our duty as citizens to make sure that the police — and all other government employees for that matter — are doing their jobs properly?  If not, then whose responsibility is it?  And who watches them?

This law is an enemy of Liberty and needs to be repealed.  It may have been passed with good intentions, i.e. prevention of blackmail, but we all know how to pave the road to hell.  Only Police Officers — and others who seek to abuse their powers — truly benefit from laws like this one.

Realize this: Any protest that ever takes place in Pennsylvania can not legally be recorded by bystanders. This allows the police, who can potentially abuse their power, to confiscate the cameras of anyone who records them, essentially eliminating evidence of any possible wrong doing.

We are losing civil liberties in this country everyday and — I don’t know about you — but I’m getting sick and tired of it.

If you still do not believe that the country we live in resembles a police state, I have a simple question for you: What will it take for you to open your eyes?

Yesterday they stole away habeas corpus. Today we can not record the police. Tomorrow they remove our right to a trial by jury. Then they take away our guns. What will we have then? Only a hollow shell of the republic that our Founders once envisioned.
 

Watch the news report: 

Can you say excessive force?  According to the witnesses, the skateboarder was on his knees when the police handcuffed then tackled him.  They then proceeded to tase him while he was lying on the ground.  The police claimed they only tased him twice (which is excessive for someone who is not being violent) but witnesses claim he was tased several times.

Coming of the heels of the UCLA taser incident, Im really starting to get tired of this shit.

A Pittsburgh girl was recently arrested for taking nude photos of herself and sending them to people she met in chat rooms on the internet. Among her charges were possession of child porn (for having the pictures stored on her hard drive), sexual abuse of children (for taking the pictures of herself) and dissemination of child porn (for distributing the pictures).

In America, the Land of the Free, a minor is not allowed to take nude pictures of herself. Not only is it not allowed, but it is considered to be child porn, and the act of taking the pictures is considered child abuse. A minor can actually be charged for sexually abusing herself. Whats next? Is masturbation going to be considered child molestation for minors?

Also, don’t forget that a child porn charge makes her a sex offender at the ripe, old age of fifteen. That means that she faces the stigma of being put in sex offender databases for the rest of her life. Some places require that sex offenders live a certain distance from schools, parks, and churches. Will her parents have to move her if they live to close to any of those places? Or will the state just take her away?

Next thing you know, a 17-year-old is going to be arrested for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old. Oh wait, that already happened.

I recently stumbled across a great article by Stefan Molyneux entitled, “The Gun in the Room“, over at LewRockwell.com. I highly suggest reading the whole thing. The first paragraph is as follows:

One of the most difficult – and essential – challenges faced by libertarians is the constant need to point out “the gun in the room.” In political debates, it can be very hard to cut through the endless windy abstractions that are used to cover up the basic fact that the government uses guns to force people to do what they do not want to do, or prevent them from doing what they do want to do. Listening to non-libertarians, I often wish I had a “euphemism umbrella” to ward off the continual oily drizzle of words and phrases designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence. We hear nonstop nonsense about the “social good,” the “redistribution of income,” the “education of children” and so on – endless attempts to bury the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of syrupy metaphors.

The article then goes on to explain how every political debate can be boiled down to pointing out the gun in the room. If someone supports taxes, point out the gun in the room. If someone supports the war on drugs, point out the gun in the room. The list goes on. Molyneux uses the public school system as a good example. The debate is not about whether or not public schools are a good thing, but rather, whether or not I am allowed to disagree with the idea of a public school system without the fear of being shot. This is not the case. If I do not believe that publicly funded schools should exist and, in turn, do not pay my property taxes I will be shot. Sure, that outcome may not be immediate, but it will happen when the government tries to take my house and I am prepared to defend it. So the next time you are in a political debate with someone who hates liberty, simply point out the gun in the room and urge them to take out all the bullets. Then, you might be able to get somewhere with them.