Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

Q:To what extent did public and political opinion in the west undermine the impartiality of judicial decision-making during the cold-war era?
—————————————-

USA

In a famous dissent, Justice Douglas of the US Supreme Court declared:

‘We have deemed it more costly to liberty to suppress despised minorities than to let them vent their spleen’ (Dennis v United States U.S. 494 at p. 585 (1951) (U.S.S.C.).

No western democracy has practiced the tolerance exposed [mistake in video, it should read “expoused”] by Justice Douglas-in the above statement, without at some stage censoring unpopular organizations. Douglas was in a minority of two on a US Supreme Court bench which upheld convictions entered against Communist party sympathizers for conspiring to overthrow the US government. (Joseph, P,think it’s “1998” edn., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, ).

In Dennis v United States, above, the US Supreme Court upheld convictions against communist party officials for conspiring to teach or advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence. Here, the Court considered that the advocacy of the communist doctrine was to be equated with conspiring to forcibly overthrow the US government.

Dennis was decided in 1951, at the height of cold-war tensions between the USSR and the US. Justice Black aligned with Justice Douglas in the minority stating:

‘Public opinion being what it is now, few will protest the conviction of these Communist petitioners. There is hope, however, that in calmer times, when present pressures, passions, and fears subside, this or some other later court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high place where they belong in a free society.’ (Dennis, supra, at 581).

Justice Black’s statement was realized six years later in Yates v United States 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (U.S.S.C). This time, a differently constituted Supreme Court bench quashed the convictions of 14 Communist Party leaders that had been entered for similar reasons under the same Act.

With the easing of east-west relations, the Court drew a clear distinction between the advocacy of forcible overthrow of government-as an abstract doctrine, and the advocacy of action to achieve that result.

According to legal philosopher Wolfgang Friedman, it was impossible to remove the judgment of the US Supreme Court from the political tensions and public opinions that existed at that time. (W. Friedman, Legal Theory, (4th edn. , 1960, at p.95).

Australia

Australia also expressed abhorrence at communist doctrine during the post-war era. In Burns v Ransley (1949) 79 C.L.R. 101 (H.C.), the Australian High Court upheld a conviction for sedition entered against a communist speaker who, when asked, announced that, in the event of a war, he would fight on the side of the Soviet Union. He was convicted for words he had spoken in reply to a hypothetical question, and not for inciting mutiny or violence.

The following year the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) declared the Australian Communist Party to be a revolutionary organization which jeopardized the defence of the Commonwealth. The statute dissolved the Communist Party and all affiliated organizations declared illegal under the Act.

The fundamental democratic principle of freedom of expression was restored when a majority of the High Court of Australia in Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, declared the Communist Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) to be unconstitutional and beyond the defence powers of the Commonwealth (see also R v Sharky (1949) 79 CLR 121).

New Zealand

During the early 1980s in New Zealand, Priminister Robert Muldoon took exception to the Socialist Unity Party and questioned it’s right to exist in a free and democratic society. However, a government, expounding the rule of law, must demonstrate greater justification for out-lawing a particular group or organization, for reasons other than personal enmity (Joseph, supra, at p.191).

See also New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s.14 (right to freedom of expression), and related case law; and Human Rights Act 1993, s.21(j)(prohibits discrimination on grounds of political opinion) incorporated, by reference, into s.19 NZBORA; note also- Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007; & see Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981, s.11 (offences involving New Zealand flag)

Duration : 0:4:20

Read more about Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

The Return to De Jure Constitutional Law is RIGHT NOW underway. Stay Vigillant

http://www.halfpasthuman.com/

“Lipper’s” Channel – http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLipperTube

RAP –
http://www.restoreamericaplan.net/
http://guardiansofthefreerepublics.com/front-page.html
http://restoreamericaplan.blogspot.com/

Duration : 0:10:2

Read more about The Return to De Jure Constitutional Law is RIGHT NOW underway. Stay Vigillant

Are you Free Man? This is not legal advice…1/4

To answer the question of ‘what acts and statutes’ are not regarded as law, the answer is none of them. To what Laws do you have to give authority to? Your own. Figure out what they are, then live by them (and serve notice, if you care to change anything for the others that are still slaves to the system…and the future)

Duration : 0:10:32

Read more about Are you Free Man? This is not legal advice…1/4

Abolish Religious Exemptions from the Law? (Part 2)

In the United States and other countries, religious institutions have traditionally enjoyed a privileged position, i.e., they have been granted exemptions from compliance with certain laws (including, without limitation, laws against discrimination in employment and laws requiring the payment of taxes). Is it appropriate or even useful for religion to have this privileged status?

Links:

1. Wisconsin Supreme Court’s use of the “ministerial exception” to dismiss an age discrimination case against a Catholic school system

http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=38088

2. New York Court of Appeals decision in Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio

http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I06_0127.htm

3. California Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court (Unfortunately, I can’t find a generally accessible URL for this decision. The citation is 85 P.3d 67 (2004).)

4. Jonathan Turley’s Op-Ed piece entitled “When it comes to religious groups, who’s really facing discrimination?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041602027.html

5. Employment Division v. Smith

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html

6. Bob Jones University v. United States

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0461_0574_ZO.html

7. New York Times article on the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association case

8. Part 1 of this video series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5TBxCfnFiw

Duration : 0:9:56

Read more about Abolish Religious Exemptions from the Law? (Part 2)

About The S E Farris Law Firm Personal Injury Attorney St Louis Missouri Free Case Evaluation Call 314 252 9937

farrislawfirmhttp://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/farrislawfirmPeopleAbout, The, S, E, Farris, Law, Firm, Personal, Injury, Attorney, St, Louis, Missouri, Free, Case, Evaluation, Call, 314, 252, 9937About The S E Farris Law Firm Personal Injury Attorney St Louis Missouri Free Case Evaluation Call 314 252 9937

Duration : 0:1:3

Read more about About The S E Farris Law Firm Personal Injury Attorney St Louis Missouri Free Case Evaluation Call 314 252 9937

Constitutional Law Prof. Frank Askin: Part 1

Prof. Frank Askin of the Rutgers Law School, NJ Constitutional Litigation Clinic on free speech in condos and co-ops. Featuring Twin Rivers and Galaxy complexes in NJ.

Duration : 0:28:26

Read more about Constitutional Law Prof. Frank Askin: Part 1

Taking Free Exercise Rights Seriously

March 30, 2006
Speaker: Professor Alan E. Brownstein, University of California, Davis School of Law
Presented by: Center for Professional Ethics

Summary: William A. Brahms Lecture on Law and Religion

• Constitutional law does not take free exercise rights seriously. Creating a more complex free exercise jurisprudence

• How do we balance religious exercise against conflicting state interests?

Professor Brownstein is an expert on church-state issues and has also written extensively on freedom of speech, privacy and autonomy rights and other constitutional law subjects. His articles have been published in numerous academic journals, including the Stanford Law Review. Professor Brownstein teaches Constitutional Law, Law and Religion, and Torts at the UC Davis School of Law, is a frequent lecturer at academic conferences and in law related programs before civic, legal, religious and educational groups. He received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1977.

Duration : 1:2:14

Read more about Taking Free Exercise Rights Seriously

Josh Freese: Indie 1031 Interview w/ Joe Escalante -How To Sell Too Many Records -Part 2

PART 2 of 2. Josh came by my legal advice show to talk about the constant threat of selling “too many records” that dogs his new release “Since 1972” on Outerscope Records. Usually on this show I’m taking calls and answering show biz legal questions but we took a break from that to get an update on what’s happening with Josh’s cool and effective price tiering that has made his new CD something everyone is talking about where ever I go.

Barely Legal Radio can be heard live every Friday from 11am to noon on indie1031.com in Los Angeles hosted by Joe Escalante. Call on Fridays to get your legal questions answered for free or better yet, email your questions to info@barelylegalradio.com and we will set up a time to call you back and record your question and answer for the next broadcast. Go to barelylegalradio.com for more details. It’s free and worth every penny.

Duration : 0:9:17

Read more about Josh Freese: Indie 1031 Interview w/ Joe Escalante -How To Sell Too Many Records -Part 2

Abolish Religious Exemptions from the Law? (Part 1)

In the United States and other countries, religious institutions have traditionally enjoyed a privileged position, i.e., they have been granted exemptions from compliance with certain laws (including, without limitation, laws against discrimination in employment and laws requiring the payment of taxes). Is it appropriate or even useful for religion to have this privileged status?

Links:

1. Regarding Christian Legal Society v. Martinez–

–the decision of the federal district court in favor of the law school

http://www.alliancealert.org/2006/20060417.pdf

–the decision of the 9th Circuit affirming the trial court’s ruling

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/08-1371_ca9.pdf

–SCOTUS WIKI’s entry on the case (lots of information and material)

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez

2. Archbishop Donald Wuerl’s talk entitled “Religious Freedom and Marriage”

3. Washington D.C.’s marriage equality and nondiscrimination law and related material

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/legislation.aspx?LegNo=B18-0482&Description=RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-AND-CIVIL-MARRIAGE-EQUALITY-AMENDMENT-ACT-OF-2009.&ID=23204

http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20100409103713.pdf

4. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

5. McClure v. The Salvation Army (the first federal appeals court decision to recognize a “ministerial exception” to Title VII)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7674766003352112619&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

6. Part 2 of this video series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHVxMDRx6o

Duration : 0:10:29

Read more about Abolish Religious Exemptions from the Law? (Part 1)