<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><head><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml><o:OfficeDocumentSettings><o:AllowPNG/><o:PixelsPerInch>96</o:PixelsPerInch></o:OfficeDocumentSettings></xml><![endif]--></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:13px">Today, there was yet another manufactured scandal involving the media. Apparently Trump<br>made a comment about Hillary Clinton and the NRA, which the mainstream media is portraying<br>as some sort of a threat against her. No doubt that media is unaware of the Supreme Court<br>case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio According<br>to Wikipedia, this decision held that "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory<br> speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.<br> Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly<br><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43250"> prohibited the mere advocacy of violence." </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43251"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43252">This decision has never been overturned, although there are probably many subsequent cases, mostly</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">district court and appeals court, which cite it. This decision is important to me especially: I wrote</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">my Assassination Politics essay, and because of Brandenburg I am supposed to be Constitutionally</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">protected even if I advocate violent crime, unless it will involve "imminent lawless action", such as</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">a riot.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">I think the mainstream media (MSM) should be flailed (figuratively speaking, of course!) for</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">"interpreting" Trump's statement, choosing the interpretation they conclude will be considered most </div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">outrageous, and then pushing that as if it is somehow accurate and relevant. Do they ever do that</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">for his main opponent, Hillary Clinton? Not very often, if at all.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">Another thing that should be done is to criticizing the news media for implicitly valuing Hillary</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">Clinton's life higher than that of other people. While it may seem odd to value a life, courts do this</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">frequently, often in the context of a civil lawsuit based on a wrongful death. For example, if</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">a life is 'worth" $100,000 per year and actuaries can state how much longer than life would last, say 30</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">years, if that person wrongfully dies, the damage is 30 x $100,000, or $3 million.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">If, when elected, Hillary Clinton will waste, say, $500 billion per year, that amounts to the</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">equivalent of: $500 billion/$3 million, or 167,000 lives per year. The kind of people who would criticize</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">Donald Trump's "NRA" statement involving Hillary would presumably claim that all human life is</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">equal in value: If they really believe that, they should realize that they must not value Hillary's life</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">over that of a typical citizen. How does the value of 1 life compare with 167,000 lives, the latter in </div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">each year over four years? (No doubt that others will believe that Trump will also waste money;</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261"> however, the numerous examples of new spending Hillary has proposed would have to result in</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261"> huge tax increases, or at least enormous deficit spending, which is merely delayed taxation, or inflation.)</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">I believe that the public should be able to protect themselves against corrupt and incompetent</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261">politicians. Naturally, those politicians won't agree.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1470759628761_43261"> Jim Bell </div></div></body></html>