On January 15, 2010 two officers from the Justice Department interviewed me in connection with my blog, My Daily Struggles. They were concerned that my blog evidenced an unhealthy anger in tone and content.
I see not one, but two, First Amendment issues in the Justice Department's questioning my right freely to express anger in my writings.
In a recent First Amendment case the U.S. Supreme Court stated: "The First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content" (quoting Justice Thurgood Marshall's opinion for the Court in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley 408 U.S. 92 (1972)). Clearly, I have a constitionally-protected right to report facts, and express ideas and opinions -- and to quote public officials.
Arguably, the Justice Department's interview also touches on my right to the Free Exercise of Religion. Intellectualized expressions of anger hold a special place in the Jewish religion, and do not denote a disposition to violence.
In Judaism, anger at the sight of wrong done is holy. Anger is disfavored only if it kindles into passion, in which case it will become conducive to strife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger#Judaism
Ecclesiastes (7:3) writes: Anger is better then laughter; for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
The Hebrew word for anger "ka' as" can mean anger and sorrow. Why are these words interchangeable in Hebrew? Ecclesiastes (1:18) writes: For in much wisdom there is much anger; and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow.
When I think about the subject matter of this blog, My Daily Struggles -- Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, its actors and public policy issues -- the Jew in me rises up in anger and says: "This case is an outrage to me!" Do I not have a constitutionally-protected right freely to express my anger at the sight of a wrong done?
Message for my Gentile friends -- in the government and out: you can keep your guns and your insouciance. I will keep writing my blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I find it interesting that the Justice Department did the same thing as Akin Gump.
Each organization took my bare words and inferred that my mere words might be associated with violent behavior.
There is persuasive circumstantial evidence that Akin Gump's concerns were pure fiction; that they took the only facts available to them, which were my verbalized expressions, and added on a contrived concern about my disposition to violence -- for which there was no evidence at all.
May we infer something about the Justice Department's gloss that my expression on my blog could be associated with a risk of violence?
Why didn't Philadelphia U.S. Attorney Michael Stiles perceive a violence risk associated with my letters from 1997?
The DOJ is OUT TO GET ME!!!!!
(Wow! Only 10 more days till my next check!)
Lord Byron wrote in Manfred:
"Sorrow is knowledge: they who know the most must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth."
Will the Justice Department permit me to quote Lord Byron?
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/01/screwing-with-heads-of-justice.html
Post a Comment