Man of Ethics
Gold Member
- Feb 28, 2021
- 4,682
- 2,135
- 248
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.
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.