Judges Team Up To Destroy Free Speech on Public Property

burke_kissingerAs reported here this week, I was threatened with arrest along with Darryl for handing out fliers inside the new courthouse. Further, on Wednesday, Jason Repsher was similarly threatened by court security agents. I went to court this morning for Graham’s trespass case and was told there is a new “order” in place for both courthouses. I was given a copy of said order. Basically, it continues the standing media restrictions in all NH courthouses, and further bans any distribution of literature inside the courthouse.

The new order is signed by both robed men, Edward J. Burke and John C. Kissinger, and with the whisk of their pens, freedom of speech has now been prohibited along with freedom of the press.

It matters not that I’ve been handing out “Don’t Take the Plea Deal” flyers in the public lobby of the district court in Keene (as well as other district courts in NH) for years. Now if I hand someone a flyer, I’ll go to a cage for an indefinite period of time for “contempt”. “Contempt” is a “power” that robed men have that is inherent in the system, not statutorily authorized, meaning there’s no way to change that part of the system, and there’s no way to challenge a contempt ruling, as I understand it. They literally can cage you forever with virtually no accountability.

So much for freedom of speech and the press inside government buildings. If you want to speak, you can do it outside in the freezing cold or rain.

  • jhvh111

    We should all chip in for a “don’t take the plea” and jury nullification billboard near these courthouses

    • thinkliberty

      We should chip in for condoms at rape cages these men wearing black dresses put people in. So people don’t get raped and AIDS for practicing free speech or freedom of the press.

  • Rene Wells

    so get more number to hand out flyers ya there might be sacrifice and sum one might get arrested but they cant arrest us all and make sure u are completely silent and then bring it to congress

  • Marvin Beall

    This article is a complete repudiation to the principles of individual responsibility and an insult to any properly libertarian minded person. You’ve included pictures of two men, and you have printed their names. Yet, the video of the interaction shows neither of those two men talking to you, nor do you suggest their either of them are at any risk of assaulting nor kidnapping you. Rather, the video show that you’re told to leave by some other men whom you have neither named nor shown in this article.

    Compare this situation to the following: suppose there is some crazy guy standing on a street-corner in Keene dressed up like Napoleon, ranting about how he is headed for Waterloo. Just as you are walking past he turns to Mike Johnson, points at you and says, “look, it’s the Duke of Wellington, strike I say!” Mike Johnson looks at the crazy guy, looks at you, then punches you in the face.

    Who are you going to blame? The obviously crazy guy, who is dressed up in a funny outfit, saying things that anyone with common sense knows are ridiculous? Or are you going to blame the guy who without your consent actually caused his own fist to make contact with your face? I’ll bet you’d blame Mike Johnson, and not the crazy guy.

    Yet in this article you’re not blaming the people who delivered the alleged threat to you. You’re not blaming the people who presumably would lay hands on you in carrying out the threat. Instead, you’re blaming the crazy guy in the funny outfit. Why is this? Is it because you have a problem with assigning individual responsibility? Is it because you are a statist and you worship the same imaginary deity as the men who actually threaten to lay their own hands on you? I’m not going to speculate. All I can do is hope that somehow the libertarian message of personal responsibility might reach you before you compose any more misdirected blog posts on this subject.

    • MaineShark

      I’m assuming that, if anyone actually attempted to /carry out/ the threat, they would be pictured and named. As in the hypothetical case that you present.

      In fact, when such a thing happened, the names of the violent transgressors were, indeed, presented: http://freekeene.com/2014/01/06/threatened-with-arrest-for-free-speech-at-new-courthouse/

      So far, in this newest development, the only story is that the threat was made, and not that anyone attempted to carry it out. Hence, there is no “Mike Johnson” to be named, and your hypothetical is not comparable to the actual situation.

      Do you propose that Ian names a list of folks who have not yet done this, and pre-accuses them?

      No, the names of the ‘crazy guys in the funny outfits’ are the only names that can be presented, other than ones which already have been, so that’s what’s presented.

      Someone who makes credible threats is committing a violent act by making those threats, /and/ someone who follows through on that threat is /also/ committing a violent act. Saying, “he incited a riot!” does not absolve the rioters from their responsibility – all are responsible.

    • Marvin Beall

      in this newest development, the only story is that the threat was made, and not that anyone attempted to carry it out.

      If the only story is that there’s a costumed guy on the corner threatening to invade Russia, writing a blog post about it merely demonstrates the blog author believes in the same imaginary deity as the crazy guy.

      Hence, there is no “Mike Johnson” to be named, and your hypothetical is not comparable to the actual situation.

      The fact that there is no “Mike Johnson” to be named is the reason why there ought not to have been a blog post. There’s nothing to write about

      Do you propose that Ian names a list of folks who have not yet done this, and pre-accuses them?

      No, I propose that Ian take to heardt the admonition that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” This blog post is about a piece of dead tree pulp with some ink patterns on it. And you apparently share Ian’s delusion that because he voluntarily looked at these patterns Ian is a victim of aggression. Please, tell me about one instance where a man in a black toga laid hands on anyone. I’ve seen plenty of violence by men wearing badges, but the ones in the togas seem particularly unthreatening, and apparently the particular ones referred to in this post weren’t even bold enough to confront Ian in person. And you consider them threatening? You are out of touch with any reasonable definition of “threat.”

      No, the names of the ‘crazy guys in the funny outfits’ are the only names that can be presented, other than ones which already have been, so that’s what’s presented.

      So you think that posts about crazy guys who haven’t laid hands on anyone, nor have a history of ever laying hands on anyone, nor could reasonably be expected to lay hands on anyone is appropriate content for an ostensibly-anti-aggression website? You are out of touch with any reasonable definition of “aggression.”

    • MaineShark

      Again, inciting a riot is an act for which that individual is responsibile.

      Saying, “go attack those guys” is an act for which that individual is responsible. Even if he wears a black robe, and has others who do the actual hands-on attacking. He is 100% responsible for his acts.

      By your ridiculous standards, Hitler did nothing wrong. He didn’t actually lay hands on anyone; he just told others to murder many millions. But he didn’t actually do any of it, with his own hands. Neither did the conductor who drove the train to the concentration camps. Neither did the worker who made the poison gas. Neither did the soldiers who guarded the camps against outside attacks. Neither did the administrators who ran the camps.

      According to the imaginary standards you’ve invented, the only individuals who bear any responsibility were the guards and whomever actually turned the valve to spray the poison into the room. Those individuals were solely responsibel, and no one else bore any responsibility, in the fantasy world where you live.

      In the real world, that’s not how it works, and a threat by an individual with an established history of convincing others to act upon his threats is a serious bit of news, indeed.

    • Marvin Beall

      Ha. That’s the lowest Godwin’s coefficient I’ve seen in a long time. You really are lacking support for your position if you have to rely on the emotional effect of yelling “Nazi” in your second post. It makes perfect sense to me as it’s now clear where you are coming from: you are anti-free speech, anti-personal responsibility, and anti-logic.

      Libertarians should run screaming from the slippery-slope you rush toward as you support the speech-crime of “inciting a riot.” I’m sure you’d be leading the charge to execute the Founding Fathers for “inciting” revolution. And don’t forget that people can be incited by the written word; have you been to any good book-burnings lately?

      No, MaineShark, if you had any legitimate foundation to support your recipe for totalitarianism, you wouldn’t be name-calling my standards “imaginary” and “ridiculous,” but rather you would be acknowledging that my standards are as real as Newton’s laws of physics, since they are based on the natural law, not your man-man communism.

      It is your standards that are imaginary, and so ridiculous it’s barely worth the effort to embarrass you by following them two steps into absurdity. Since you believe everyone is responsible for all evils performed by everyone with the most tenuous connection, such as the farmer who grew the organic vegetables eaten by Adolph Hitler, let’s not forget that Ian travels by automobile, which runs on gasoline, which is purchased along with a payment of gasoline taxes, which goes to the federal government, which sends part of those funds to the State of New Hampshire, which pays for the judges’ salaries. So by your own Godwin-centric excuse for logic, Ian Freeman is responsible for threatening himself. But you’re careful to avoid that inescapable conclusion, aren’t you?

    • MaineShark

      I notice you did not address the issue. Do you actually claim that Hitler did nothing wrong?

      It’s a yes/no question. So, which is your position?

      The rest of your post is irrational ranting.

      Oh, and yes, I do believe that the “Founding Fathers” were responsible for revolting against Britain. I wouldn’t execute them for it, because I think that revolting against Britain was a good thing. But I would certainly hold them responsible for their actions (in this case, by saying, “good job”). I suppose you would say that those who signed the Declaration of Independence didn’t actually do anything, because it was just words, right?

    • Marvin Beall

      I notice you did not address the issue. Do you actually claim that Hitler did nothing wrong?

      I don’t see anything in the OP about Hilter, meaning it’s off-topic, meaning it’s not “the issue,” though I understand your inescapable desire to use it as a distraction from your self-contradictory position. However, since you seem so intent on being the poster-boy for Godwin’s law, I will indulge you with a premise:

      I would never claim that any human being who has ever lived “did nothing wrong.” That includes both Hitler, as well as the author of this blog post, whose voluntarily-contributed gas taxes pay the salaries of the toga-wearing men whose speech-“crimes” you categorize as aggression.

      The rest of your post is irrational ranting.

      Of course it seems irrational to you. That’s the only account your mind has resort to in order to spare you from the intolerable cognitive dissonance that you would suffer were you to confront the air-tight logic I’ve used to deconstruct your anti-freedom attacks on non-aggressive behavior. Of course, “irrational” as you use it is just a euphemism for “crazy” which is the justification your type uses when condoning the imprisonment without trial of those who commit thought-“crimes” such as holding opinions that differ from your own. I wonder how many other plays out of Stalin’s handbook you’re ready turn to now that I’ve cleared the smoke and broken the mirrors that you would have used in your futile attempt to feign logic.

      I suppose you would say that those who signed the Declaration of Independence didn’t actually do anything, because it was just words, right?

      Again you are wrong. Of course they “did anything.” They made ink patterns on some dried hemp pulp. Is that violence? Is that aggression? Is that injury to another? No, it’s arts and crafts. You know: that act that is either worthy of saying “good job” or else writing a blog post of condemnation containing defamation, libel, and invasion of privacy according to the whims of anti-free-speech types like you and the author of this blog post.

    • MaineShark

      I notice you’re still ignoring the issue by childishly attempting to ignore what was actually said and pretend the question was something else. I’ll restate it, to make it /crystal/ clear:

      Hitler ordered that millions by murdered.
      Does he, or does he not, bear any responsibility for that? Is he a mass murderer, or just a guy who talked about mass murder a lot?

      You may also want to actually look up what “Godwin’s Law” actually says and means. It does not in any way state that using Hitler for comparisons is illegitimate. What it states is that such comparisons are inevitable, because Hitler and the Nazis are nearly-universally regocgnized as evil. I could use Bush or Obama as examples of mass murderers, but then someone will argue that it really wasn’t so, and he was just defending our freedom. Using Hitler as a point of comparison means that the discussion stays on-topic rather than swerving off into a debate over whether that individual was really all that evil.

      Using something as a point of comparison is not off-topic. Or were you going off-topic with your irrational victim-blaming rants about the gas tax?

    • Marvin Beall

      I notice you’re still ignoring the issue by childishly attempting to ignore what was actually said…

      Is that so? Considering that what you actually said is

      Do you actually claim that Hitler did nothing wrong?

      and considering that I told you I would never make such a claim, not only did I not “ignore” that issue, rather I gave you a direct answer.

      Now you are asking another question in reference a particular “order” which you have not specifically identified, but rather have paraphrased using conclusory legal terminology (i.e., “murder”). If your question is whether I believe murder is a crime that ought to be punished, I emphatically answer “yes.” If you are asking me whether the particular speech act to which you are referring without providing me the benefit of knowing its content nor context deserves punishment, I can only do what any rational thinker can do, which is to say that whether any particular act of any nature entitles you to inflict violence on the actor as “punishment” for that act is determined by the specifics of the act itself. Thus, I will be happy to give you a direct answer to this new question of yours as soon as I have such information as any rational person would require to reach such a conclusion. Just provide me with a link to the order to which you are referring in order that I may interpret it directly without the obfuscation of your characterization of its content. Then I shall provide you with my analysis.

      You also raise another issue, namely that there is some legitimate argument to be made that either Bush or Obama are not mass murderers. You seem to be suggesting there is some such objective standard one might apply in making the determination of whether one is a mass murderer or rather defending freedom by which standard Hitler qualifies as mass murderer but either Bush or Obama do not. I do not want to assume anything about what you are implying, so would you be so helpful as to explain what standard this is you are referring to?

    • MaineShark

      It’s a simple question, with a simple answer. Hitler ordered others to kill people. He used only words to do that – he never actually shot or gassed anyone, or the like. According to the standard you’ve proposed, he is guilty of no violation of anyone’s rights for doing so.

      And no, I did not say that either Bush or Obama is not a mass murderer. I said that “someone” would make that argument. Folks make all sorts of irrational arguments. As you’ve repeatedly demonstrated, with all of these irrational arguments that you’ve made.

    • Marvin Beall

      Wow, talk about folding like an ironing board. Honestly I thought you’d come up with something better than that. For what it’s worth (not much), I give you credit at least for noticing you were about to paint yourself into a corner.

      For anyone reading who missed what just happened, the reason MaineShark suddenly lost interest in hearing my answer to his question and decided it would be better to provide his own “answer,” it’s because I challenged him to provide some specific quotes of the person he’s trying to compare the NH Judges to. Of course, if he were to do that, it would become so obvious how ridiculous is his comparison of the NH Judges to Hilter, that even his anti-free-speech comrades would shun him at the next CPUSA meetup.

      You know, MaineShark, while there is a certain limited satisfaction in watching you retreat with your tail between your legs like that, I must confess my disappointment in being deprived of the opportunity to embarrass you with a hearty reductio ad absurdum by the fact that the first thing you typed was so absurd as to leave no room for further reduction. You commies really need to come up with something new besides the “anyone who disagrees with us is an irrational Nazi” line.

  • Roger Richard

    I like the billboard idea, maybe someone could “donate” the side of a barn, on a high traffic area?