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

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Talks About The New Illegal Immigration Law 1070 in Arizona

Interview excerpts from an Orange CA Radio Show taken on the day SB 1070 was signed into law.

Wakeup America this law does not racial profile, and is 100% constitutional.

Duration : 0:8:42

Read more about Sheriff Joe Arpaio Talks About The New Illegal Immigration Law 1070 in Arizona

KO Countdown : Wiretap 090407 : What Americans Can Do

MSNBC
Countdown

Wiretap
20090407
Whats a freedom-loving American do to?

Constitutional law Prof. Jonathan Turley discusses the legal ramifications of the Obama administrations defense of former President George Bushs wiretapping policy.

***

Source
http://msnbc.com

Duration : 0:4:12

Read more about KO Countdown : Wiretap 090407 : What Americans Can Do

Reclaiming Your Sovereign Citizenship 6 of 17

And this is from 1995 folks. Give this Johnny some credit.

Duration : 0:6:31

Read more about Reclaiming Your Sovereign Citizenship 6 of 17

Employees Expose FOX NEWS’ Distortions

http://de.youtube.com/user/tyrannyofsoulz

FOX News: “Fair and balanced” because they say so!

A brief but shocking compilation from the documentary:
“OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”
http://www.outfoxed.org/

As Rupert Murdoch’s ‘war on journalism’ hits new lows, droves of disgruntled employees are confessing their many misdeeds, brought upon by the Soviet-Union-esque environment they faced at FOX News. Watch how FOX executives dictate their bias by forcing reporters to follow memos that predetermine what they can say and how they should say it.

Rupert Murdoch has decided that the best approach to journalism is to parade opinions dressed-up as News. The reason is simple: No one can disprove an opinion, and therefore, credibility is easier to maintain. Should they ever be caught lying, the legal process affords them protection under the First Amendment. We also have Congress to thank for the bright idea of passing a rider Bill (hidden) to deregulate the News Media.

That’s right; Corporate News entities can tell lies and distort the news as they please, and it’s all perfectly legal.

To the best of my knowledge, no country can have or maintain democracy without an honest Press or, at least, one that can be held accountable. But where is ours?

Not convinced? “Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal in a major media organization lying, concealing or distorting information”: http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/RupertM…

This video clip is a brief compilation from Robert Greenwald’s documentary:
“OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”:
http://www.outfoxed.org/

Duration : 0:9:58

Read more about Employees Expose FOX NEWS’ Distortions