Jury Nullification Still Legal

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
Thomas Jefferson
In celebration of a recent decision that it's still legal to discuss jury nullification, I'll take this window of opportunity to dedicate a blog post to the topic. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood determined that it's perfectly legitimate to encourage jurors to vote their conscience, even when that conflicts with the letter of the law. More specifically, she found that distributing pamphlets about jury nullification is not jury tampering, even in front of a courthouse.

Jurors have the authority to judge the law and may vote to acquit a defendant who is guilty of doing something that should not be a crime.

First Amendment (1791-2012) R.I.P.

Lady Liberty, in her guise as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and specifically "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," has been dragged to the gallows by the Senate, the rope placed around her neck by the House of Representatives, and awaits only the President's signature to drop into the abyss of history.

On February 6, the Senate passed S.358 by Unanimous Consent, moving it on to the House of Representatives, where it became H.R.347.¹ On February 27, it passed the House by a vote of 388-3.

The only "no" votes were from Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Paul Broun (R-Ga.), and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). Forty-two Representatives were absent for the vote.

The bill makes it a federal offense to enter a building or grounds without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function if "the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" or if said area is "restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

Shouting and/or waving signs of protest can easily be construed as disruptive conduct.

The Transformational Generation

I had other plans for today's post, but then I ran across a compelling essay, on Pastebin, by way of Twitter, which tangentally restates the theme of the essay itself.

I don't know who Piotr Czerski is, or his age, or where he lives, other than that he is young, and from Poland. Nor does it matter, as Piotr himself points out.

What I do know is that Piotr is representative of a generation like none the world has seen before. I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from Piotr's essay, other than a warning that those who fail to recognize the fundamental shift that it represents are rapidly sowing the seeds of their own irrelevance.

I can't recommend reading the entire essay strongly enough. You'll find it included at the end of the post under Creative Commons license, which represents yet another restatement of his theme.

After noting the superficial differences that separate the various 'generations' that get bandied about, he proceeds to point out what makes his generation the transformational one. His generation is the one that has grown up with the richness of the Internet as a natural extension of their lives, rather than as a tool that can be used, or not, to provide some benefit. Piotr's generation breathes the Internet, as we do not.

What unites us is not a common, limited cultural context, but the belief that the context is self-defined and an effect of free choice.

We grew up with the Internet and on the Internet. This is what makes us different; this is what makes the crucial, although surprising from your point of view, difference: we do not ‘surf’ and the internet to us is not a ‘place’ or ‘virtual space’. The Internet to us is not something external to reality but a part of it: an invisible yet constantly present layer intertwined with the physical environment. We do not use the Internet, we live on the Internet and along it.

You Might Be a Terrorist If...DHS Edition

Having apparently learned absolutely nothing from the Missouri Information Analysis Center fiasco of 2009, when their report "The Modern Militia Movement" leaked and stank up the blogosphere for a while, the Homeland Security Science and Technology Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division (now that's a great bureacracy name, isn't it?) has issued a report titled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008.

Of course, the fact that it's 2012 doesn't speak too well as to the timeliness of the report. But give them a break, they're a massive bureaucracy, after all, and can't be expected to react to myriad threats in a timely manner.

The report is actually produced by START, otherwise known as National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, based at the University of Maryland. Aren't those government acronyms cute?

After a thorough reading I am now completely convinced that the authors were paid by the word (why else all the redundancy and round-about modes of expression?) and per scholarly cite, as well as a hefty bonus for colorful charts and graphs.

I think this report is certainly worthy of reasoned, scholarly analysis in the manner of Jeff Foxworthy, so to that I dedicate these humble efforts. Now remember, after reading each of these bullet points aloud, you should encourage those around you to join you in the chorus: "you might be a terrorist!" It will provide the most entertainment if you read it in a library, on public transportation, or beside an open window in a crowded apartment or office complex.

Bipartisan Bird of Prey Claims Judge Nap

Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch, "the best damned daily libertarian news & argument show in the history of television (name a better one!)," as Reason magazine described it, was cancelled today by Fox Business Network. The Judge will still appear on Fox Business as a legal consultant.

In memorium, this Tireless Agorist will step aside for this column, and let the Judge speak to us through one of his best five-minute editorials ever, Bipartisan Bird of Prey. Video first, followed by a transcript, for those who'd care to follow along or read it later.

More of Judge Nap's Freedom Watch is available here.

House Republicans: Frack Transparency

Let's jump right in with some coverage from the Huffington Post.

"WASHINGTON -- In a stunning break with First Amendment policy, House Republicans directed Capitol Hill police to detain a highly regarded documentary crew that was attempting to film a Wednesday hearing on a controversial natural gas procurement practice [called fracking]."

In my naivety, I had always assumed that these hearings were public. I know they occasionally invoke "National Security," but that's the exception to the rule. It's called "The People's House," after all. Why should our employees have any authority to keep us from watching over their shoulder? That's the whole reason for CSPAN's existence, when you get right down to it.

Who's afraid of a camera, after all? It's not like it throws lumps of lead around the room at deadly and earsplitting velocities, or sends electric shocks through the people in the viewfinder, or causes them to cough and gag as their eyes water. It's a benign and passive device. But that's apparently not the viewpoint of our legislators.