Random Thoughts: Governor Lamont and Free Speech

In Waterford, a man is seemingly in hot water for allegedly threatening the governor via Twitter.  

Via WTNH News 8:
Waterford Man Charged With Threatening Lamont (1)

Allow me to share with you my thoughts on the matter.  

From the start, I must make it clear that I absolutely do not condone what this man appears to have said.  Even so, I question where the governor is going on this.  My lack of a law degree notwithstanding, it doesn't appear to me that the person in question violated any law.  

To explain this, let's examine the relevant facts. 

Every American has the right to free speech, and the right to speak his or her mind without fear of reprisals from the government.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this clear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (2).

Moreover, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut also weighs in on the subject:

"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty" (Article I, Section Four) 

Obviously, this freedom is not absolute; notice that the state constitution talks about "abuse" of freedom of speech.  You can't say things that, reasonably considered, pose a "clear and present danger" to another's safety (think shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire).  And you can't express serious intent to engage in any "imminent lawless action". (See: "true threats", Note 1)

That said, let's look at what Connecticut state law says on the subject of "threatening".  

According to Section 53a-62 Chapter 952 of the Connecticut General Statutes, a person is guilty of the charge when:

"(1) By physical threat, such person intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury,

(2) such person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person, or such person threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, or 

(3) violates subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection and the person threatened is in a building or on the grounds of a (A) house of religious worship, (B) religiously-affiliated community center, (C) public or nonpublic preschool, school or institution of higher education, or (D) day care center, as defined in § 19a-87g, during operational, preschool, school or instructional hours or when a building or the grounds of such house of worship, community center, preschool, school, institution or day care center are being used for the provision of religious or community services, or house of worship, community center, preschool, school, institution or day care center-sponsored activities".  

It seems to me that this person did not pose an "imminent" threat to the governor's physical safety, nor have the clear capability to carry out such a threat.  By the accused's own admission, he did not have any clear intent to harm the governor.  As such, the speech that this man expressed cannot be construed as a "true threat".  

Here's something else to consider.  According to a research report by attorney Susan Price-Livingston (representing the State of Connecticut), state courts don't always consider whether or not a perceived threat is serious.  "Rather", she says, they "resolve(d) the pure speech cases that (have) come before them under the First Amendment's 'fighting words' doctrine" (3).  

I won't get into whether or not the state has erred by applying this criteria as opposed to the "true threat" example.  Nevertheless, even by the "fighting words" standard, the accused is innocent of the charge, as the speech expressed does not meet the associated tests.  (See: Note 2)

That being the case, what exactly is going on here? "True threat" or not, does Governor Lamont think so little of free speech that he will seek to punish anyone that dares utter a word against him? The answer, apparently (supported by my own experience with him), is yes (4).  

You see, in Ned Lamont's world (to paraphrase wrestling personality William Regal; see below) he is "your ruler, your better, and your superior" (5).  

All hail "King Ned". 

Note 1: See also "Watts v. United States", Supreme Court of the United States, 1969.

Note 2: The "fighting words" doctrine applies only when all of the following conditions are present: 

1. The speaker addresses his words directly to a specific individual.

2. The encounter is face-to-face.  

3. The words used are likely to provoke the “average addressee” to violence under the circumstances. and

4. The threat of a violent response is imminent (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942)) (3).  

Since there was no face-to-face encounter with the governor, and no apparent threat of a "violent response" from such, this test must fail.  

An Essay on Race and Racial Education

If you've been following the latest news, then perhaps you've heard of something called Critical Race Theory, or CRT.  This is an academic concept that attempts to discuss the issue and history of race (as it applies to America) (1).  

CRT has ignited a firestorm of sorts; many parents have engaged in heated debates with educators over its teachings.  Frankly, I share the concerns of these parents.  Personally, I have no problem with Connecticut schools teaching the history of race and racial relations.  I think that this is a subject that should be examined under a critical light.  

The issue, then, is with the specific ideas that CRT advances:

• America is a racist nation, and has been from its founding.  

• Being black or having black skin makes you better than others who are not black.

• The best way to address racial issues is to practice Communist principles.  

Yes, this is what is currently being taught in our public school systems (2).  And it's not so much of a new concept as it might seem to be.  Unfortunately, the idea of division based on race (as well as other factors) was being discussed a long time ago.  

Twenty-some years ago, I was a senior at what was then known as Fairfield High School.  At the time, there were certain classes that the state required students to take.  One of these was a course called "Islamic Studies"; it included lessons about the history and religious beliefs of Islam.  

As surprising as it might be that this was a state-mandated course, what was taught in that class was even more shocking.  I can still clearly recall something that my teacher, a female Dr. Kelly, once said (in the process of lecturing the class):

"Islam is a religion of peace, and Roman Catholicism is a cult" 

The really scary thing is that as a student, you were expected to agree with statements such as this.  If you questioned them, you would likely find yourself with a failing grade.  And sure, you could perhaps opt out of the class; just not if you ever anticipated graduating.  

I fear that this sort of thing is still happening in our schools.  That is, students are being told that if they want to pass a course, they must say what the teachers want to hear (3).  

These days, that is most likely "all cops are bastards", "(only) black lives matter", and "America was never great".  

Maybe it's time we taught our children not to judge people based on the color of their skin, but instead on "the content of their character" (4).  

Random Thoughts: Another Election

 A few random thoughts for today.  

- Another election year, another big defeat in my hometown of Fairfield.  The GOP lost the majority on the town's legislative body, the "Representative Town Council".  To make matters worse, it also lost the town Board of Finance (1).  

What does this mean? It means that going forward, every new big building project proposed will be approved....except for the ones that go against the "woke" agenda (Chick-Fil-A, anyone?).  And don't get me started on how the town will see higher taxes.  In short, Fairfield will continue to devolve into "Little Bridgeport", so to speak.  

Is this what we really want? Do we want a sky-high level of crimes such as car thefts and burglaries? Do we want Democrats to be able to "deny and deflect" any responsibility for the fill pile scandal (started under the previous Democrat First Selectman)? Do we like the fact that town Democrat "leaders" frequently use scare tactics (such as calling all Republicans "Nazis", which they did this year) to intimidate Fairfielders into voting for them?

And do we want our children to be taught that if someone has black skin, that alone makes them superior to anyone else (see Note 1)?

Think about it!

- Lately, it's been rather difficult to "keep the faith".  

It's always the same old story after elections; we say we're going to win big, and then we don't.  Don't get me wrong, I like the direction that the Fairfield (and Connecticut) GOP is going in.  What greatly disappoints me is the final outcome of major races; they haven't really developed in our favor recently.  And seemingly, one can't blame me for being disheartened.  

Take a quick look around you.  Fairfield is becoming urbanized, and losing the small town New England charm that has served it so well.  And every day, we lose a little bit more of our rights and freedoms.  This is true not just for Fairfield, and not just for Connecticut, but for the entire nation.  

There is a song that I sometimes listen to which speaks to this rather well.  

If I may, here's a small excerpt of "Broken Dreams" (as written and performed by "Shaman's Harvest"):

"Almost to the mountaintop

You slip and fall just like a stone,

Rolling ever faster

To this nightmare you have sown.

You had it all right in your grasp,

But in a breath, your minute passed.

Now at last the end has come,

You are all alone"

Maybe I'm a bit too traditional in my beliefs, or perhaps too old-fashioned for my own good.  Nevertheless, as I see it, people are no longer living the "American dream", but an "American nightmare" (apologies to wrestler Cody Rhodes).  

"Don't you look behind the curtain

No one's there, the end is certain" (2)