My tweets regarding the latest stupid thing fat boy said to get the cameras pointing at him (/and the media is making BANK on advertising due to his words, not a one of which he believes/) had this tenor: There's no law against suggesting people go hunting politicians INCLUDING Donald Trump. Beware of an 'incitement' rap, and: I'd gladly trade a bunch of dead politicians INCLUDING DONALD TRUMP, for a similar number murdered by police for #WalkingWhileBlack and #DrivingWhileBlack Rr On 08/10/2016 01:59 AM, jim bell wrote:

Today, there was yet another manufactured scandal involving the media. Apparently Trump made a comment about Hillary Clinton and the NRA, which the mainstream media is portraying as some sort of a threat against her. No doubt that media is unaware of the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio According to Wikipedia, this decision held that "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence."

This decision has never been overturned, although there are probably many subsequent cases, mostly district court and appeals court, which cite it. This decision is important to me especially: I wrote my Assassination Politics essay, and because of Brandenburg I am supposed to be Constitutionally protected even if I advocate violent crime, unless it will involve "imminent lawless action", such as a riot.

I think the mainstream media (MSM) should be flailed (figuratively speaking, of course!) for "interpreting" Trump's statement, choosing the interpretation they conclude will be considered most outrageous, and then pushing that as if it is somehow accurate and relevant. Do they ever do that for his main opponent, Hillary Clinton? Not very often, if at all.

Another thing that should be done is to criticizing the news media for implicitly valuing Hillary Clinton's life higher than that of other people. While it may seem odd to value a life, courts do this frequently, often in the context of a civil lawsuit based on a wrongful death. For example, if a life is 'worth" $100,000 per year and actuaries can state how much longer than life would last, say 30 years, if that person wrongfully dies, the damage is 30 x $100,000, or $3 million.

If, when elected, Hillary Clinton will waste, say, $500 billion per year, that amounts to the equivalent of: $500 billion/$3 million, or 167,000 lives per year. The kind of people who would criticize Donald Trump's "NRA" statement involving Hillary would presumably claim that all human life is equal in value: If they really believe that, they should realize that they must not value Hillary's life over that of a typical citizen. How does the value of 1 life compare with 167,000 lives, the latter in each year over four years? (No doubt that others will believe that Trump will also waste money; however, the numerous examples of new spending Hillary has proposed would have to result in huge tax increases, or at least enormous deficit spending, which is merely delayed taxation, or inflation.)

I believe that the public should be able to protect themselves against corrupt and incompetent politicians. Naturally, those politicians won't agree.

Jim Bell