Media's Lack of Knowledge of Law should be Embarrassing

[jim bell]

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, mostlydistrict court and appeals court, which cite it.  This decision is important to me especially:  I wrotemy Assassination Politics essay, and because of Brandenburg I am supposed to be Constitutionallyprotected even if I advocate violent crime, unless it will involve "imminent lawless action", such asa 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 thatfor 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 HillaryClinton's life higher than that of other people.  While it may seem odd to value a life, courts do thisfrequently, often in the context of a civil lawsuit based on a wrongful death.  For example, ifa life is 'worth" $100,000 per year and actuaries can state how much longer than life would last, say 30years, 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 theequivalent of:   $500 billion/$3 million, or 167,000 lives per year.  The kind of people who would criticizeDonald Trump's "NRA" statement involving Hillary would presumably claim that all human life isequal in value:  If they really believe that, they should realize that they must not value Hillary's lifeover 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 incompetentpoliticians.  Naturally, those politicians won't agree.
            Jim Bell  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 5626 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160810/1cce5f44/attachment-0002.txt>