Unpopular Opinion: Jury Duty can be used to take a stand for Free Speech.

I agree.

I alone am no one -- an overweight and physically weak 50yo Autistic man.

Hopefully tens of millions of people will take a stand for Free Speech.

 

I am nobody -- a 50 yo overweight Autistic male.

If 15% of American people -- the "Deplorables" will view the perpetrators of Cancel Culture as Enemies of Humankind rather then Fellow Citizens, then and only then can we Make America Free Again.

 

Viewing them with contempt is one thing. (I think we should ignore them. It's social media. The best way to cancel a social media phenomenon is not to participate. Like that will ever happen. lol. Still the way I roll. I ignore it as much as possible.)

Usng unusual mitigating circumstance defenses has precedent in some high-profile cases like the Twinkee defense and others. They don't work. When someone becomes violent because of being fired, we call it "going postal." People get fired everyday. I'm certain a large portion of those feel they were wrongfully fired. They don't get violent.

 

I would not encourage assaultive behavior.

But anyone who values Free Speech should do anything in their power to ease the lot of victims of Injustice of Cancel Culture.

Tens of millions of spouses are cheated on and do not get violent. Many feminists supported Clara Harris and her reaction to her husband's infidelity. A jury of feminists may have freed her.

 

I support free speech. (I also support private enterprise.)

If ten of millions of people become vocal anti-cancellers, cancel culture will die. That won't happen through the court system, but I give you credit for being inventive.

 

I hope so... However it happens.

 

Emily Javier attacked her boyfriend Alex Lovell in his sleep with a katana. She severed several of his fingers. She tried to decapitate him.

All because he was unfaithful. This has no legal justification. Infidelity is not a crime.

Many feminists supported her. A feminist jury would have freed her.

 

Then you boycott the company. Get together with your supporters and discuss how you could pressure them. If it's something like Home Depot or McDonald's, it's easy. You make it known that you are now Lowe's and Burger King customers. Picket local businesses. There are many options.

These companies see nothing but green. The reason for the firings is strictly a business decision. If you want to fight the firings, you have to convince the companies that it is not in their best business interest to do so.

 

This should be done in addition to jury duty.

 

True, but infidelity, especially if caught in the act, can and has been successfully argued as a mitigating circumstance.

 

1) Infidelity is not illegal. Violent response to infidelity is a crime. In USA 2020, no man would be excused for violent reaction to his partners infidelity.

2) Hopefully more people would also see unjust persecution for legitimate political opinions as a mitigating circumstance.

 

And what do you consider being "deplatform". I've seen mini for writers claim that any disagreement at all with their point of view is an attack on their free speech.

Years ago on this very forum there was someone who claimed they were being attacked because they were called a racist after posting a thread claiming all black people with criminals that they were naturally inclined to be to be criminals.

That is the vast majority of the far-right. They claim that being called out on their b******* isn't attack on their free speech. They have it in their heads that Free speech means free from all consequence. Guess what Free speech means you cannot be criminally charged for giving an opinion that's it end of story. Someone else is my calculator free speech by disagreeing with you or having an opinion on your opinion


If anyone is the enemy of free speech it is people like you.

 

Sorry about the typos I'm on my phone and autocorrect sucks ass.

 

I would argue that anyone that ruins a person's lively hood because they say something you don't like is an enemy of free speech. Free speech is about protecting unpopular speech. Because popular speech has no need of protection.

 

I would like to correct slanderous misrepresentation of my position.

People guilty of actual hate speech should be fired or otherwise disciplined at work. People guilty of serious hate speech can be prosecuted in UK, and Australia.

Nevertheless, anyone that ruins a person's livelihood because they say something you don't like (except for actual Hate Speech, or extreme profanity) is an Enemy of Humankind.

In 2020, many Leftists destroy peoples livelihood for political opinions far from Hate Speech.

 

Free speech is about being allowed to express opinions without criminal consequences. It prevents the government and only the government current fringing upon free speech. I personally opposed cancel culture. I do not believe someone should be fired for expressing an unpopular opinion, but that is still up to the employer. If someone's public expressions hurt a company's image they have the right to remove that person.

The funny thing is for writers who complain about the cancel culture, are usually among the first to be up in arms and then man people be fired for expressing far-left opinions. both sides do it and both sides try to pretend that the only other side is the only one that does it.

 

Free Speech is about far more than preventing the goverment from interfering in speech. Too many think that is all its it's about.

Tell me...if cancel culture existed to the point it's at today in the 1960's where do you think the civil rights movement would have ended up?

What are you going to do if you get canceled? Lose you home because of it? I'm sure you think it won't happen to you. But what if it did? Maybe you told an off color joke and someone finds out?

As I said, free speech is about protecting unpopular speech. What I didn't say is the reason....its because one day they may come for you. History is replete with examples of such. Thinking it won't happen is to ignore that and setting yourself up for being canceled. And that is when you will wish you had stood up for the other persons person's speech....that will also be the time that you learn what real Free Speech is actually about.

 

An employer who fires a person for legitimate political opinion or a SJW who pressures an employer to fire someone for a legitimate political opinion are not guilty of violating the First Amendment. Even then, for government-supported universities the rules may be different.

Nevertheless, I urge all people who truly support Free Speech to view the aforementioned employer and SJW as enemies and hold them in contempt.

 

Sadly it can happen to many people for expressing Political Opinions very far from Hate Speech.

 

Or from something that happened so long ago as to be meaningless.

 

There are just as many people on the right who oppose any opinions and suppress expression in speech of those who disagree with them at their on the left the difference is people on the right and left only care when the other side does it.

 

Sad but true. Now the Left has much more power in Western Culture, but the Right can be at least as vicious.

 

Having given more thought to the subject, I came to the following conclusions.

1) Jury Nullification is a right. Irrelevant of what nay-sayers say, no one has pointed out a single example of a juror being prosecuted for his/her vote on jury.

2) About 90% of cases which go to juries are far from clear cut. Thus, arguments for both guilt and innocence exist.

3) The AntiTotalitarian Commitment is the following:

Those who support Free Speech should make it their credo. Nay-sayers are irrelevant.

 

Jury Nullification is an Right used for centuries:

 

I was once dismissed from a jury for discussing Jury Nullification with the Judge. The look on his face was one of irritation.