I’m Proud that I am a Caucasian Western European American Man! I am tired of being down graded and focused on as a member of a group portrayed as a source of problem in the world. I take pride in saying this. It certainly does not say that I despise, belittle, condemn, oppress or hate anyone else. It simply means I am what I am and I have no apology for this being and I find satisfaction in this reality. I am Scott, I am Welsh, I am British, I am Canadian, and I am All American. As in the sixties the Establishment said about America: Love it or Leave it, now I say about me Like it or Lump it! 😄
Being a Suspect has never been the legal guide for denial of a legal or constitutional US Right. All I am saying is if this standard is changed be prepared for this precedent to ripple through our other constitutional freedoms as well. Just something to consider.
Our government has already made inroads toward arresting (detaining) US citizens and holding them indefinitely without setting Constitutionally required hearings and trial. We have much rhetoric about “grouping” of people based upon a generally identifiable and might I add “perceived” appearance.
In reviewing my life, I have not seen such a level of public “fear” in America even during the 60s in relation to civil rights and the so called ‘Soviet Threat’. Even then those in fear had a ‘known’ predator. Moreover, we and even oppressed minorities trusted our government to protect us as Americans. Today, there appears to not only be distrust but growing fear that the government is failing to protect us. Why? One element is that rogue terrorists are accomplishing their message. Other than the growing military-like ISIS; terrorists realize they cannot win a military campaign. This is why they use terrorism against unarmed civilian populations. Since they cannot win an outright military campaign they set their design on terrorizing the public with aim of creating fear, uncertainty and disarray. In other words terrorists seek to disrupt the target society through fear and drive the target into irrational or non-rational behavior.
Fear in a society creates a ripe moment for fundamental knee jerk changes in government, laws (including constitutions) and civil rights.
Americans: we must remain logical and rational in our actions. Knee jerk behavior seeking quick “so called ‘fixes” may carry long lasting negative effects and may forever change our form of government.
I want to preface this so please consider my concern as you read the rest. First, I feel deeply for the fear and pain the little Lane Grave who was attacked and died as the result of what appears to be an alligator attack at Orlando, Florida’s Disney World. I also feel sorrow for the parents who witnessed the event. I cannot imagine their trauma. The same extends to the mother and child in the recent zoo case and the gorilla.
Keeping with the above and as a lawyer and parent I must submit the following for consideration. Our society is becoming ever more litigious. Turning to the Court for redress has become a knee jerk response to unpleasant experiences. As Americans we have come to think that at any wrong a new law or court opinion will correct all grievance. As an attorney I well know that in a suit or legal action both sides pay a toll for accessing ‘the system’. The toll of monetary expense is self explanatory, but other expenses such as mental pain and anguish, fear, consternation and stress are costs few litigants consider in advance. I repeat, all parties suffer this type of emotional cost; even the quote ‘winning party’. But, beyond costs to the parties all society pays indirectly by the escalating of new law and/ or the ripple effect of court opinions which become precedent and thereby effect society.
The Media hype seems to be calling for a lawsuit against Disney World for breach of duty arising from either or both factors of nonfeasance and negligence. Perhaps Disney could have better warned the public by signs such as “Alligators Can Kill, Don’t Get Near or In The Water”. But should they say “so many feet” from the water, or “how close together” should signs have been posted? Consider that the simplest sign is the best “Don’t Get In The Water”. We could discuss all kinds of language and situations. Law long ago established that owners and operators of facilities who invite the public to come in must offer reasonable protection.
However, let’s say Disney is sued and they are found negligent or that findings conclude a level of liability arising from nonfeasance. Now what happens? City parks in American cities and state and federal parks have all kinds of wildlife that can be lethal to humans. Precedent of law naturally extends to all kinds of situations where supposedly signs should create a state of “guest beware”. Are we willing to pay this cost?
Two instances of parents not maintaining control of their children have led to the child coming into contact with potentially lethal animals in the last month. The Gorilla and the Alligator cases. As horrible as these outcomes have been we must remember that parents have a duty also. They have a duty to use a high level of due diligence and have an elevated standard of care of the minors they oversee as parents. Part of this is to use common sense. Florida wetland is a habitat for alligators and other predators not to mention all types of bacteria in non-running percolating water. These dangers are common knowledge. Zoos contain a host of many lethal animals. The news is replete with animals escaping from time to time. Zoos can only offer a level of safety that is in all practicality ‘never certain’ and they, like theme parks, are by definition places where life or limb may be lost or injured. These places are ultra-hazardous and by this fact trump the ‘reasonableness’ standard of protection of guests. Under the case law ultra-hazardous defendants are most often strictly liable for losses of or death to plaintiffs. But..should parents also be held accountable when placing their minor children in these types of harm’s way?
Just Food For Thought. The law is never simple and laws and court cases have rippling effect in both direct and indirect ways.
A letter I have recently joined in.
Your Excellency, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr. Hassan Rouhani
We the undersigned, a group of university professors in North America, write you concerning the dire circumstances of a number of political prisoners in Iran. It is our hope that you would consider intervening on their behalf and arranging for their immediate hospitalization under the care of competent and expert physicians.
Much distressing news is emerging concerning the battle some of these political prisoners are waging against cancer. It is common knowledge that in such cases the patient must be diagnosed in a timely manner and put under the care of competent physicians.
According to reliable sources, political prisoners are routinely denied access to immediate medical care. Prison authorities seem to routinely delay or limit access of inmates to the prison hospital. Medical care providers who have attended to these seriously ill prisoners have lacked proper medical qualifications. They may even have violated their medical oaths. We call upon you to order an immediate investigation of the medical files of the political prisoners named in this letter to ascertain the veracity of our charges.
Many of these political prisoners who are battling cancer are not allowed to visit outside hospitals specializing in oncology. The conditions of prisons add to the stress that cannot help but worsen their conditions. Prisoners who are serving their sentences often come under pressure to collaborate with the security forces as spies or to appear on national television and confess to crimes they have not committed.
Meanwhile, the entire prison is flooded in harmful and potentially carcinogenic telecommunication waves aimed at jamming mobile phones. Prisoners often complain of headaches that may be related to this reckless policy. Drinking water in Evin prison is not safe for consumption. Prisoners’ daily diet is poor and ill-suited to their conditions.
Prisoners are often subjected to psychological pressures which border on “white torture”. The families of these political prisoners are also under constant pressure. Contrary to the rules and regulations of Iranian prisons, political inmates are denied brief furloughs allowed to non-political prisoners.
The number of political prisoners that during the last few months have protested their conditions by engaging in hunger strike has increased. Some have gone so far as sewing their lips in protest. Unfortunately the judicial authorities in the Islamic Republic have no respect for the rudimentary principles of human rights, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, or even their own rules and regulations governing prisons. The relationship between the totality of these conditions and the epidemic of cancer and other chronic diseases sweeping Iran’s prisons must be carefully studied.
The affliction of the young physicist Omid Kowkabi with cancer of the kidney and the reckless procrastinating policy of prison authorities in failing to provide him with proper care (leading to the removal of his kidney in a recent operation) is a glaring example of the condition we have outlined above.
We also bring to your attention another political prisoner, Hossein Ronaghi, who is suffering from severe kidney failure and who has started a hunger strike to protest his unbearable conditions.
The third example is Isa Saharkhiz who after a prolonged hunger strike is now diagnosed with the cancer of the adrenal glands – a condition that should have been diagnosed and treated much earlier.
The fourth case is Dr. Alireza Raja’i, who after enduring five years of imprisonment is now battling the cancer of the jaw and face. Physicians are dismayed that he was not reported for treatment in a timely fashion.
The fifth case is Dr. Hossein Rafi’i, retired professor of Chemistry at Tehran University, suffering from multiple ailments.
These are just a few, long suffering political prisoners who are still alive. Mohsen Dokmehchi lost his life to cancer while incarcerated. Ahmad Qabel was diagnosed with brain cancer while in prison. He died soon after he was sent to the hospital in the final stages of his affliction.
Contrary to the official promise by the state that old and sick prisoners would be freed to receive treatment, no such accommodations have been made for political prisoners.
Mr. President, although you are not in charge of the Judiciary, you remain the highest ranking elected official in Iran. As such, you are duty-bound to protect the basic rights of Iranian people and those imprisoned on political charges.
We are witness to your admirable work on the global stage for a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issues based on mutual respect. You have done much to achieve a more respectable image for Iran. We are confident that addressing the dire condition of political prisoners in Iran and their urgent medical needs will enhance the humanitarian image of Iran around the globe.
If the urgent release of these political prisoners is not possible, please allow for a group of independent specialist physicians from within Iran or international organizations such as Doctors without Borders, International Red Crescent/Red Cross and the United Nations) to visit these prisoners and those who have been recently released but who suffer from a variety of ailments. The physicians should be allowed to examine their medical files and assist the medical experts engaged in treatment of these individuals.
Mohsen Kadivar (Duke University)
Hamid Dabashi (Columbia University)
Mahmoud Sadri (Texas Woman’s University)
Minister of Health and Medical Training of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Doctors Without Borders
International Red Crescent/Red Cross
My latest presentation on connecting pro social change while in prison with potential for maximum social reintegration in community upon release. 22 March, 2016 presentation at the Sixth International Conference of Religion and Spirituality in Society, Washington, DC.
Thank you for listening to my presentation.
I am looking forward to this year’s discussions: Sixth International Conference on Religion and Spirituality in Society at The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. My topic on religion and spirituality as part of an overall treatment program assisting successful reentry to society and desistance from crime following prison. Faith and Identity associate in meaningful ways.
A question begged concerns the Supreme Court’s definition of protected speech. Protected speech is free speech. The 1st Amendment tells us Free Speech is protected in America. However, judicially defined exceptions and special protections exist. These judicially determined cases are narrow and specific so as not to limit free speech more than necessary to protect third party rights under equal protection guidelines.
In 1942 the Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire [315 U.S. 568] held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes “fighting words”. Fighting words, are defined by the Court, as speech that “tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace” by provoking a fight, so long as it is a “personally abusive word which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction” (as clarified in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). ‘Personally abusive’ means the words must be “directed to the person of the hearer” and is “thus likely to be seen as a ‘direct personal insult'”. In Virginia v Black [538 U.S. 343 (2003)] threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected; but where the ‘reasonable person’ would understand the words as ‘obvious hyperbole’ there is no protection [Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)] Also, In NAACP v Claiborne Hardware at 458 U.S. 886 (1982), the Court determined that where threats of ‘social ostracism’ and of ‘politically motivated boycotts’ are generally protected, when it is judged that political speech ‘can be a threat’ even political speech becomes unprotected.This brings us to Trump’s statements especially his statement at the recent rally when he said ‘if any one sees someone with a tomato hit them first’. Add such statements to increasingly hostile depiction of “religious Islam” as opposed to “political terrorists using Religion to build collective effervescence” and the mood of volatile and emotion driven crowds create a frenzy of hate that plays out in collective and behavioral responses to political speech.
A question then was this ‘personally abusive’ according to the Court’s definition? I will allow you to digest this and decide. I argue today’ immediacy in digital communication and media satisfies this need of ‘personal immediacy’. Even if not does Trump fall in the exception to the excepted protection for political speech?
My opinion? Trump has stepped over the line. If not, he is dangerously close. Wake up America!