Should we laugh at things like this, should we cry, or should we scream? By Hal M. Brown

I had nothing to write about a few minutes ago, but then Ann’s sister, Nancy, sent her this and she showed it to me. I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry, or scream.

I had the same feeling when I saw online what, with my perverse sensibility, I thought was the best anti-Trump protest sign (click for footnote: ¹

Look at the editorial cartoons by Ann Telnaes (here).² They are definitely not amusing They are somewhere between cry or scream inducing. Don’t look to Ann Telnaes or any of these editorial cartoonists to get a good laugh. If you want to laugh look at these New York cartoons.

Editorial cartoons reflect where the country is. Consider these cartoons and Biden. Here’s a search for Obama cartoons.

While many are critical none suggest that Biden or Obama were hellbent to utterly destroy democracy.

Whether in cartoons (some with words and others without words) protest signs, in articles, or on TV, the messages about what Trump is doing to wreak havoc on both democracy and what used to be considered the underpinnings of social order and common sense must be sent out across the nation in a way that the people who need to hear it pay attention before it is too late. It has to come as if it is the thundering word of God from sky.

Our rights to tell in any way we choose to do so what we sincerely believe is true are embodied in the First Amendment.

This is the relevant, the crucial part, related to my Substack today:

Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way. Freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation . The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for interference with the right of free speech when it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable , either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.

A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action , fighting words , commercial speech , and obscenity . The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to individuals in general.

As long as we have a democracy this means we can get the message out that Trump is trying to undermine democracy. We can use whatever methods and means we have to educate, motivate, and inspire people to wake up from their “what me worry” sleepwalking through life and realize they must actually do sonething before the First Amendment, and in fact the entire Constitution, is rendered irrelevant.

Update:

My friend Sabrina Haake and I must have a cosmic connection since we wrote about similar topics today. Like I wrote yesterday (here), when it comes to a later stage of the round-up of Trump enemies the MAGA Gestapo will be knock at (or busting down) out doors. Read Sabrina’s Haake Take here.

She also references the First Amendment:

Social media vetting is viewpoint discrimination under the 1^st A

When the government engages in viewpoint discrimination, it singles out a particular opinion, perspective or “viewpoint” for treatment that differs from how other viewpoints are treated. Viewpoint discrimination, where the government persecutes or otherwise punishes someone for expressing views it dislikes or disagrees with, is illegal.

In 1995 the Supreme Court explained: “When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”

She concudes:

Scared yet? Sabrina has a link to NPR story about Trump jailing and deporting US citizens abroad.

Read all my Substacks here. Don’t forget that comments are always welcome.

Recent (click image to enlarge)

1. You have to scroll down Stormy Daniels’ X page to find any posts about Trump. Mostly she promotes her shows there. I keep posting to her account hoping that she reposts something I write. This could get me many more followers.

2. Telnaes made the news when she quit as the editorial cartoonist for The Washington Post when Jeff Bezos spiked this cartoon showing him to be a Trump tool. That backfired big time on Bezos since prior to that only subscribers could see the cartoon and then it was all over the news (Google search here).