Unpopular Opinion: Jury Duty can be used to take a stand for Free Speech.

[Man of Ethics]

I believe that in any trial, jurors should take into consideration either party's opposition to Free Speech. Someone who passively opposes Free Speech supports firing/blacklisting people for their Political Opinion (not genuine Hate Speech), and supports Deplatforming. Someone who actively opposes Free Speech has been involved in Firing, Blacklisting, and Deplatforming.

In my opinion, a defendant or accuser's active opposition to Free Speech should be important to jurors for the following reasons. First, someone who actively opposes our most Fundamental Human Rights should be seen as The Enemy of Humankind rather then a fellow citizen. Second, such person is morally bankrupt and thus capable of any wrong doing they are accused of. When we have no Free Speech, we are not really Free. He who has no right to voice his grievances has no rights. Those who oppose our Free Speech take away all our rights and our personhood.

Taking a stand for Free Speech may seem as a party issue, but it is not completely the case. In USA 2021, Totalitarian Left has the power and popularity to censor Free Speech. Nevertheless, Liberal Liberals still exists and support all Human Rights. In USA 2021, Totalitarian Right has been pushed to the fringe of the fringe. Nevertheless, when they had power they were vicious. In places where they still have power, they are also vicious. Opposition to Freedom can come from either direction, yet it is always evil.

If at least 15% of American population is committed to defending our Free Speech, we can make a great difference. If those who oppose Free Speech would be aware that their evil actions would follow them if they are accused of any crime and have to face a jury, then they would be less likely to actively Cancel or Deplatform people.

I understand that my opinion would be unpopular not only among those who support Cancel Culture, Censorship, and Deplatforming, but also among those who support Freedom. Nevertheless, I hope to persuade at least some people that my opinion is valid.

Jury Nullification is not my original idea. It existed for centuries. In USA in 1920s, most jurors practiced Jury Nullification in trials for alcohol possession.

During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time, because of disagreements with the justice of the law.

Some scholars and politicians support Jury Nullification. According to Wikipedia article Jury Nullification in the United States,

Ron Paul, a U.S. Representative and presidential candidate in 1988, 2008 and 2012, is a notable supporter of jury nullification and has written extensively on the historic importance of juries as finders of fact and law...

Some advocacy groups and websites argue that private parties in cases where the government is the opponent have the right to have juries be instructed that they have the right and duty to render a verdict contrary to legal positions they believe to be unjust or unconstitutional.

The United States Libertarian Party's platform states, "We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law."

I am not aware of any juror in the history of USA who was convicted for Jury Nullification. Perhaps I do not know. It seems that the only person in USA who was convicted for advocating Jury Nullification is Keith Eric Wood who directly handed out fliers to potential jurors. He was convicted of misdemeanor.

PS.

Keith Eric Wood was exonerated by Michigan Supreme Court.
Here.

 

[lg325]

Judges can reverse a jury's decision here in Florida if it is not in line with the law. There is a movement trying to change that.

 

[d0gbreath]

Rest assured, that should you be called to court in the jury pool, you won't get picked, and you can go home.

 

[bodecea]

Rest assured, that should you be called to court in the jury pool, you won't get picked, and you can go home.

Unless he/she lies.

 

[Rogue AI]

Jury duty is about the case at hand. Going in with an agenda would likely get one disqualified, or should. Attempting to plant an agenda outside the case at hand corrupts the system's integrity.

 

[lg325]

Jury duty is about the case at hand. Going in with an agenda would likely get one disqualified, or should. Attempting to plant an agenda outside the case at hand corrupts the system's integrity.

You're correct. I have served on jury duty and they do weed those out during the selection process. I do encourage anyone to show up for jury duty.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Unless he/she lies.

Silence is golden. Has any juror ever been convicted for Jury Nullification?

 

[Man of Ethics]

Jury duty is about the case at hand. Going in with an agenda would likely get one disqualified, or should. Attempting to plant an agenda outside the case at hand corrupts the system's integrity.

If you can provide me one case of a juror convicted for practicing Jury Nullification, I would reconsider my position -- at least for the jurisdiction where that is possible.

 

[bodecea]

Jury duty is about the case at hand. Going in with an agenda would likely get one disqualified, or should. Attempting to plant an agenda outside the case at hand corrupts the system's integrity.

Which is what the Right wants.

 

[Man of Ethics]

I have served on jury duty and they do weed those out during the selection process.

Thus, people should be briefly educated on how to answer their questions.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Which is what the Right wants.

Jury Nullification is a right -- not an act of corruption.

Jurors should take anyone's opposition to Freedom into account.

 

[Papageorgio]

I believe that in any trial, jurors should take into consideration either party's opposition to Free Speech. Someone who passively opposes Free Speech supports firing/blacklisting people for their Political Opinion (not genuine Hate Speech), and supports Deplatforming. Someone who actively opposes Free Speech has been involved in Firing, Blacklisting, and Deplatforming.

In my opinion, a defendant or accuser's active opposition to Free Speech should be important to jurors for the following reasons. First, someone who actively opposes our most Fundamental Human Rights should be seen as The Enemy of Humankind rather then a fellow citizen. Second, such person is morally bankrupt and thus capable of any wrong doing they are accused of. When we have no Free Speech, we are not really Free. He who has no right to voice his grievances has no rights. Those who oppose our Free Speech take away all our rights and our personhood.

Taking a stand for Free Speech may seem as a party issue, but it is not completely the case. In USA 2021, Totalitarian Left has the power and popularity to censor Free Speech. Nevertheless, Liberal Liberals still exists and support all Human Rights. In USA 2021, Totalitarian Right has been pushed to the fringe of the fringe. Nevertheless, when they had power they were vicious. In places where they still have power, they are also vicious. Opposition to Freedom can come from either direction, yet it is always evil.

If at least 15% of American population is committed to defending our Free Speech, we can make a great difference. If those who oppose Free Speech would be aware that their evil actions would follow them if they are accused of any crime and have to face a jury, then they would be less likely to actively Cancel or Deplatform people.

I understand that my opinion would be unpopular not only among those who support Cancel Culture, Censorship, and Deplatforming, but also among those who support Freedom. Nevertheless, I hope to persuade at least some people that my opinion is valid.

Jury Nullification is not my original idea. It existed for centuries. In USA in 1920s, most jurors practiced Jury Nullification in trials for alcohol possession.



Some scholars and politicians support Jury Nullification. According to Wikipedia article Jury Nullification in the United States,



I am not aware of any juror in the history of USA who was convicted for Jury Nullification. Perhaps I do not know. It seems that the only person in USA who was convicted for advocating Jury Nullification is Keith Eric Wood who directly handed out fliers to potential jurors. He was convicted of misdemeanor.

PS.

Keith Eric Wood was exonerated by Michigan Supreme Court.
Here.

We don’t convict or not convict people because of their view of free speech. One could argue that you are anti-free speech because you are wanting to punish a person because of their views on free speech.

 

[Man of Ethics]

We don’t convict or not convict people because of their view of free speech. One could argue that you are anti-free speech because you are wanting to punish a person because of their views on free speech.

What I mean is that any juror bases the decision partially on personal grudges they hold. This is our right.

In my opinion, anyone who is silenced by Cancel Culture should take every reasonable legal step to act against Best Interests of Cancel Culture proponents.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Jury Nullification is a right as ancient as Jury System itself.

In over 90% of jury cases, both the Prosecution and Defense make plausible cases.

 

[lg325]

So your position is a person's personal prejudices and even bigotry should be allowed in their decision of a person's guilt or innocence. A person may go to prison or be put to death because a jury may have a grudge against that person's ethnic group or culture or the way they comb their hair.

 

[Man of Ethics]

So your position is a person's personal prejudices and even bigotry should be allowed in their decision of a person's guilt or innocence. A person may go to prison or be put to death because a jury may have a grudge against that person's ethnic group or culture or the way they comb their hair.

That has been the case since the beginning of Trial by Jury.

Juror 3 of Twelve Angry Men was assaulted by his son, thus he wanted to convict a totally unrelated young man of patricide.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Jury Nullification is a Right as old as the Jury Duty.

 

[lg325]

Impartial Jury . According to this it is not a right. I am sure there may be cases where a judge prosecuted a jury for prejudice. I am not sure where to go to research it on the net.

 

[Man of Ethics]

I am sure there may be cases where a judge prosecuted a jury for prejudice.

If someone can find such cases, I am ready to change my opinion.

In any case, if both the prosecutor and the defender make plausible cases, then prosecuting a juror for bias would seem to be impossible.

 

[Man of Ethics]

As I have said, people who support Freedom should take every reasonable legal step against proponents of Cancel Culture. If I misunderstand some law, please tell me.