WTE: “Red flag” laws raise constitutional red flags

Prior to a couple of weeks ago, who ever heard of “red flag” laws? Now, they are all the buzz. What are they? And why are thy controversial? Let’s start with some facts. They are also known as extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), and they allow the confiscation of legally owned firearms from anyone a judge deems a risk to self or others.

Of course, the criminal justice system has always had this power. “Red flag” laws, however, expand it far beyond the criminal justice system. In states like Florida, Indiana and Rhode Island, it is given to law enforcement as well. Others, like Hawaii, give any family or household member, teacher, medical professional, coworker or law enforcement power to file a confiscation petition with the court.

When such a petition is filed, there is no requirement for a trial, evidence or a hearing—not even for the accused to be present or notified. Discretion to grant or deny lies totally with the judge. Not only so, but the standard of proof guiding his discretion is lowered by “red flag” laws.

Most criminal convictions must be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the highest standard of proof. Civil disputes must convince a jury of “clear and convincing evidence,” or at least a “preponderance of evidence.”

“Red flag” laws like those in New York, however, are not constrained by any standard of proof at all. Not even “substantial evidence,” or even the lowest level, a “reasonable suspicion,” is required before confiscation. Confiscate first and ask questions later.

“Red flag” laws require no hearing before confiscating but do require a hearing afterwards. Even then, the burden of proof is not on the court to justify its confiscatory judgment. Rather, the victim must prove a negative--that he is not a threat. He is guilty until proven innocent—and there’s not even the accusation of a crime.

Of course, all of this is driven by fear, namely, the specter of a deranged individual with a gun. But the specter of disgruntled co-workers, ex-spouses and activist teachers or social workers using these vague laws to harass the innocent ought to be at least as frightening.

We are witnessing the implosion of civility in public discourse. Public officials and media types have become indistinguishable from internet trolls. They hurl irresponsible charges with neither evidence nor fear of consequence. In this environment, sloppily written laws are not only prone to abuse, they are designed for it.

Not only is there no safeguard or penalty for malicious accusations, the accused doesn’t get a public defender. If he can’t afford a lawyer to retrieve his property, the temporary confiscation may become permanent. If he can, his legal bill must be paid out of his own pocket.

Finally, consider this. Deranged people have used knives, claw-hammers and automobiles to assault their victims, but these can't be confiscated under “red flag” laws. The only private property that can be confiscated is also the only kind protected by its own constitutional amendment. That’s not ironic. It is intended.

In a similar way, “red flag” laws have undermined the First Amendment as well. While the vilest and craziest speech remains inviolate, three types of speech are regularly denied protection. Speech defending the unborn is forbidden in public if it is close to an abortionist. Speech that upholds the institution of marriage and speech that upholds the complementarity of the sexes are forbidden by SOGI laws.

Also like “red flag” laws, private citizens have been empowered to unleash the limitless resources of government against fellow citizens. A single complaint to a “civil rights commission” can trigger years of legal trouble. People like Jack Philips, Barronelle Stutzman, Melissa Klein and many more, have been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal defense in order to defend their right to speak obvious truth.

Meanwhile, those who file the complaint have little out-of-pocket expense. The government does all the heavy lifting. If the courts eventually decide that the complaint was without merit, there is no penalty at all for the person who unleashed the legal harassment.

“Red flag” laws outsource unconstitutional abridgements of the First and Second Amendments. They don’t take all guns or forbid all speech. They open a back door for random players to harass you until it costs so much time and money to exercise your rights that you voluntarily give them up.

I am as frightened of a crazy man with a gun as anyone else. But I am even more frightened of crazy neighbors with the right to take them away. For that matter, I am not that crazy about any infringement on constitutional rights without the due process of law. That should be a red flag to anyone.

“Red flag” laws raise constitutional red flags

When I drove into the Wind River range, I had never heard of “red flag” laws. By the time I emerged three days later, they were the hottest topic in the news.

It was disorienting, like walking in on a conversation in a foreign language. So, I had to educate myself. Here’s what I learned. “Red flag” laws are otherwise known as extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs). These laws allow a court to issue an order to confiscate legally owned firearms from anyone whom a judge deems to be a risk to himself or others.

Who can ask a judge to do that? That depends on the state. Some, like Florida, Indiana and Rhode Island, give this power only to law enforcement. Hawaii, on the other hand, allows any family or household member, teacher, medical professional, coworker or law enforcement to file a petition with the court.

When judges receive such a petition, it is totally up to them whether to grant it. There is no requirement for a trial, evidence or a hearing. The person who is targeted by the petition doesn’t have to be present, or even notified. Some “red flag” laws do stipulate an objective level of proof that the judge must determine. None of them requires anything approaching “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

American jurisprudence has six levels of proof that judges apply. From highest to lowest they are: “beyond a reasonable doubt,” “clear and convincing evidence,” “a preponderance of evidence,” “substantial evidence,” “probable cause,” and “reasonable suspicion.” Colorado merely requires a “preponderance of evidence” before confiscating your firearms. New York judges are not required to find any level of proof at all. In such states a judge can rubber stamp any petition that crosses his desk.

“Red flag” laws do require that a hearing be scheduled after the confiscation. The victim may wait weeks or months before finally getting his day in court. But even there, the burden of proof is not on the court to justify its confiscatory judgment. Rather, the victim has to mount a legal defense to prove that he is not a threat to others. He is guilty until proven innocent—and there’s not even the accusation of a crime.

Of course, the specter of a deranged individual with a gun is a frightening prospect. It was the Parkland school shooting that scared 12 states into passing red flag laws. Before that, only 5 states had them. But the threat of a crazy person with a gun has been with us since the invention of gun powder. The threat of courts that are enabled to seize personal property without any evidence or due process has been around since the beginning of time.

Responsible firearm users would never shoot first and ask questions later. But “red flag” laws confiscate first and ask questions later. That’s troubling. Before we go off half-cocked, let’s think this through.

Courtroom in Uinta County Complex

First, realize that the courts in Wyoming already have authority to confiscate firearms from a person who is a threat to himself or others--even before he is convicted of any crime. I know. I have sat in the Uinta county courthouse and watched this happen. I even agreed with the judgment.

“Red flag” laws are not needed to give law enforcement this ability. Rather, these laws only expand the number of people who can petition to have your guns confiscated, even when there’s no allegation of a crime. Meanwhile they lower the burden of proof that the state must meet, often removing it altogether.

Second, we are witnessing the implosion of public civility. Citizens regularly hurl irresponsible charges at one another. Elected officials and media types have become indistinguishable from internet trolls. They label their opponents as Nazis, bigots or haters with absolutely no evidence and without fear of consequence. Is this the best time to give such people an additional weapon to have your guns confiscated by merely alleging that you are a “possible danger” to society?

“Red flag” laws allow a private citizen to unleash the power of government against another private citizen and they have no meaningful penalties when the accusation proves false. Nor is the victim given a public defender. Rather, he must prove his innocence on his own dime. In most cases, a legal defense will cost more than the guns are worth. The temporary confiscation may become permanent simply because the victim can’t afford a lawyer.

Third, why are firearms the only personal property covered by red flag laws? Deranged people have used knives, bats, claw-hammers, axe-handles and automobiles to assault their victims, but none of these can be confiscated under “red flag” laws. It is troubling when only one kind of personal property is exempted from due process. It is doubly troubling when that kind of personal property has an entire constitutional amendment protecting the right to keep and bear it.

All this got me thinking. Are there any other laws that permit a private citizen to unleash the power of government upon his or her ideological opponent? Are there any other laws that single out one constitutional right to remove it from legal protection?

Then, suddenly it struck me. While today’s “red flag” laws are being urged against the Second Amendment, we have seen them before. They have been used for decades to strip First Amendment rights away from certain speech.


Speech restricted zone outside Planned Parenthood

While almost every kind of speech—even the vilest and craziest speech—is protected by law, three types of speech are regularly denied First Amendment protections. For years speech defending the unborn has been restricted from certain public spaces—determined by proximity to abortion clinics. More recently, speech that upholds the institution of marriage and the complementarity of the sexes is forbidden by SOGI laws.

Just like “red flag” laws, private citizens have been empowered to unleash the limitless resources of government against fellow citizens. A single complaint to a  “civil rights commission” can trigger years of legal trouble. People like Jack Philips, Barronelle Stutzman, Melissa Klein and many more, have been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal defense in order to prove that they have the right to say, “men are men and women are women.”

Jack Philips, Lakewood, Colorado

Meanwhile, the people who file the complaint have little out-of-pocket expense. The government does all the heavy lifting. And, if the courts finally decide that the complaint was without merit, there is no penalty at all for the person who unleashed the legal harassment.

“Red flag” laws are nothing new. State and local governments have used them to outsource unconstitutional abridgements of the First and Second Amendments for decades. They don’t take all guns, or all free speech. They just make it easier for your fellow citizens to harass you until it costs so much time and money to exercise your rights that you finally give them up.

I am as frightened of a crazy man with a gun as anyone else. But I am even more frightened of crazy neighbors with the right to take them away. For that matter, I am not that crazy about any infringement on constitutional rights without the due process of law. That should be a red flag to anyone.

WTE: Break the cycle that objectifies and dehumanizes you

We are in the middle of another cycle. They seem to be coming ever more frequently. The cycle starts with a universally acknowledged evil, like the mass-murders in El Paso and Dayton.

Phase two exploits the incident with pre-planned talking points designed to advance an agenda. In this case, the agenda is gun control.

In phase three politicians float measures designed to split the difference between opposing sides. Instead of asking principled questions of right and wrong, they calculate positions for political advantage.

Phase four is marked by the entrance of interest groups that are not as well-organized and heavily funded as the primary special interests. You might see psychologists drawing attention to mental illness and psychotropic drugs. Law-enforcement unions might advocate for armed guards. Pro-family groups point out the role of fatherlessness.

These interests all have valid statistics and reasoning behind their claims. Nevertheless, they are drowned out by the overarching narrative. Legitimate concerns are marginalized or shoe-horned into the dominating narratives.

The cycle concludes when the agenda is either adopted or defeated. Either way, both sides check the polls to assess the new normal and develop talking points to exploit in the next cycle.

No matter where you find yourself in the cycle, we are all too easily caught up in it. Focused on our own special interests, we fail to see the bigger picture. When this happens, we are no longer participants but pawns.

Sociologists and psychoanalysts, aided by data analysis, have learned how to use buzzwords and triangulation to play you like fiddles. Sophisticated behavioral science is used to manipulate your behavior. The dopamine that is released by getting a “like” on your post is a powerful—if cynical—drug to keep you coming back for more.

Sophisticated algorithms are not designed to inform and challenge your better angels. They are designed to stroke your ego with positive feedback. The goal is not to enhance dialogue, but to exert influence. Facebook, Google, Twitter and the media outlets that depend on them are not neutral platforms play you for profit.

Cynical and unscrupulous people objectify you as a means toward an end. They exploit your time, energy and relationships for their own gain, without regard to your well-being. This is dehumanizing. It should make all people recoil in disgust.

The cycle also derails thoughtful conversation and replaces it with simplistic shibboleths. Serious consideration of complex interrelationships is replaced by slogans akin to Orwell’s: “Four legs good. Two legs bad.”

Such false dichotomies contribute to the increasing polarization of our world. One by one, formerly independent thoughts are sucked into the vortex of the cycle du jour. As more and more independent issues are co-opted by the central narrative, the stakes are raised ever higher.

As a hurricane grows in intensity by enveloping ever more area, so also, a thousand policy positions are fused into a single, totalitarian storm. For instance, once we could have a meaningful conversation about the evils of fatherlessness. But now those genuinely tackling the problem of fatherlessness are dismissed as shills of the pro-gun lobby.

In the absence of meaningful dialogue, ad hominem attacks proliferate. Totalitarianism destroys personal relationships. It is designed to do so. This is the greatest evil of them all. I know that sounds conspiratorial, so let me explain.

I do not think that the combatants themselves set out to destroy relationships. I don’t even think it is the central goal of the people pulling the levers of big tech. The one whose goal is to stir up hate is none other than the devil himself.

When you recognize this fact, tactics change. Winning the argument must become less important than loving your neighbor. Avoiding personal attacks and dishonest argumentation is as important as the facts you present. Otherwise the devil wins.

Similarly, mindful of the awesome power of big tech to manipulate the collective mind, we should become ever more wary of being manipulated and ever more skeptical that our source has given us the full story.

The very heart of relationship is in giving and receiving. Open yourself in humility and thanksgiving to receive deeper understanding from your ideological opponent. This posture drives away pride and rebuilds our broken world, one person at a time. It breaks the cycle instead of feeding it.

Let me close on a personal note. Since I started writing publicly, many have assumed that I write to advance some agenda. I do not. I do not purport to represent the Wyoming Pastors Network, Lutherans or any other group. Only one thought drives my writing: I believe our public discourse needs more voices that care as much about positions as about their opponents. My only hope is to be such a voice.

Break the cycle that objectifies and dehumanizes you

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

We are in the middle of another cycle. They seem to be coming ever more frequently. The cycle commences with a man-made disaster. An airplane crash or a mass shooting is sure to start one. Sometimes, natural disasters are attributed to human causation; a hurricane or winter storm will start the cycle. 

What they all have in common is that the disaster itself is commonly and universally seen as an evil about which we should do something. The most recent cycle was set off by a pair of mass-murders in El Paso and Dayton.

According to pattern, the incident was exploited with pre-planned talking points designed to advance an agenda. In this case, at least two of the 2020 presidential hopefuls launched a salvo against the Second Amendment while the scene in El Paso was still active.

Phase three of the cycle involves politicians. Driven by focus groups, or perhaps behind-the-scenes signals from a major donor, they float measures designed to split the difference between opposing sides. These don’t generally ask principled questions of right and wrong, constitutional vs. unconstitutional. They calculate, instead, which position in the mushy middle can gain the most votes from one side while losing the fewest from the other.

Phase four is marked by the entrance of lobbying groups that are not as well-organized and heavily funded as the pro- and anti-gun lobbies. During this phase you will see psychologists and counselors using the incident to draw attention to mental illness. Anti-pharmaceutical groups correlate the murders with psych drugs. Law-enforcement unions might use the opportunity to advocate for armed guards at key locations. Pro-family groups point out the high correlation between mass-murder and fatherlessness.

These lobbying groups all have valid statistics and reasoning behind their claims. Nevertheless, they will be drowned out by the overarching narrative of gun-controls vs. Second-Amendment rights. So, their concerns are mostly ignored and marginalized.  Instead, they get pigeonholed into one of the two dominating narratives.

Typically, the groups talking about mental illness and pharmaceuticals are thrown in with the gun-control advocates to include those issues in background checks. Family groups and law-enforcement, on the other hand, are often dismissed as providing cover for the pro-gun crowd.

This cycle will conclude either with the defeat of the latest gun-control proposals or with their adoption. If they are defeated, the anti-gun lobby will check the polls to see how far the needle has been moved in their direction. If the measures are adopted, talking points will be prepared for the next cycle to move the next compromise position a little further in their direction than the last.


Photo by Clarissa Watson on Unsplash

Seasoned readers of this column will know that my sympathies lie with the pro-family groups. Bet, that is beside the point. No matter where your sympathies lie on the particulars of the cycle du jour, it’s the cycle itself that we need to talk about.

Too easily we are caught up in it. Focused on our own special interests, we fail to see the bigger picture. When this happens, we are no longer participants but pawns. Sociologists and psychoanalysts, aided by computer data analysis, have learned how to use buzzwords and triangulation to play various constituencies like pawns.

The social-media giants employ sophisticated behavioral science in order to manipulate your behavior. The dopamine that is released by getting a “like” on your post is a powerful—if cynical—device to keep you coming back for more. Sophisticated algorithms are not designed to inform and challenge your better angels. They are designed to stroke your ego and give you positive feedback.

Photo by Marc Schaefer on Unsplash

The goal is not to further the public conversation, but to make money. This is true whether we are talking about Facebook, Google, Twitter or the mainstream media outlets that hawk their wares on these platforms.

In some cases, the goal is not money, but political power. Either way, it is always wrong to use other people. Whether it is a manipulative boyfriend or a manipulative corporation, the immorality is the same.

Cynical and unscrupulous people desire to objectify you as a means toward an end. They exploit your time, energy and relationships for their own gain, without regard to your well-being. This is always dehumanizing. It should make us recoil in disgust.

The societal harms that come from this cycle are many and they are serious. The first, and most obvious, is that it tramples on a nuanced and thoughtful conversation. Serious consideration of complex relationships is not possible. They must, instead, be crammed into one of two artificial categories. Leisurely contemplation of sublime truths is short-circuited by an Orwellian judgement: “Four legs, good. Two legs, bad.”

The false dichotomies that stifle thoughtful conversation lead to an ever-increasing polarization of our world. One by one, formerly independent thought is sucked into the vortex of the cycle du jour. As more and more independent issues are co-opted by the central narrative, the stakes are raised ever higher. As a hurricane grows in intensity by enveloping ever more area, so also, a thousand policy positions are fused into a single, totalitarian storm.

For instance, once upon a time we could have a meaningful conversation about the evils of fatherlessness and how we could work together to mitigate the problem. But if discussion of this problem threatens to divert attention from the agenda driving the cycle, it must be dismissed as a diversionary tactic from the pro-gun side. After that, those genuinely tackling the problem of fatherlessness are dismissed as shills of the pro-gun lobby.

This, in turn, leads to an escalation of rhetoric and personal animosity. Totalitarianism destroys personal relationships. It is designed to do so. This is the greatest evil of them all.


Photo by Tyler Nix on Unsplash

As an observer of our cultural wars, I concluded long ago that the destruction of personal relationships is the real goal. I know that sounds conspiratorial, so let me explain.

I do not think that it is the goal of the people who are at each other’s throats. I don’t even think it is the goal of the central planners who are using technology to manipulate the conversation. The one who wishes to destroy personal relationships and stir up hate is none other than the devil himself.

When you recognize this fact, tactics change. Winning the argument must become less important than affirming the humanity of your neighbor. Loving your neighbor becomes more important than proving your point.

When we recognize the awesome power of social- and news-media to manipulate the collective mind, we will become ever more wary of the motives behind their product. Simultaneously, we must become ever more humble in our opinion that we have all the needed facts.

Photo by Ahna Ziegler on Unsplash

This, in turn, will make us more open to the knowledge that our ideological opponent might give us. Conversation is about giving and receiving. That is the very heart of relationship. When we receive truth from our neighbor in humility and thanksgiving, pride and thanklessness are driven away. This is the very thing that is needed to rebuild a broken world.

So how can you break the cycle instead of becoming a part of it? Vice President Pence answers, “No. 1 is spend more time on your knees than on the internet.” I couldn’t agree more.

WTE: Amazon’s censorship should be called out by the ALA

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This, First Amendment to the US Constitution was prompted by the British censorship of colonial printers.

In brief, it forbids censorship which means the, “suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.” Even so, censorship remains a constant threat.

After its passage, in 1798 and again in 1917, Congress passed so-called “Sedition Acts” that punished certain speech in wartime. Similarly, the Smith Act of 1940 still prohibits the forceful overthrow of either U.S. or state government, but even “advocating” for such overthrow. The Supreme Court, has since ruled the “advocating” part unconstitutional.

In lead-up to the Civil War, we saw a new form of censorship. When abolitionists used the US Mail for a pamphlet campaign aimed at swaying southern citizens against slavery, pro-slavery groups pressured the Postmaster General to block delivery of these materials.

The sedition acts punished unfavored speech after the fact. By contrast, pamphlet censorship prevented certain speech altogether. It was far more insidious than the former.

The threat of punishment may discourage speech, but it cannot muzzle it. Those with courage to speak out can still do so and defend themselves in court. But censorship that prevents certain words from being heard is impossible to counter. A courageous speaker is simply de-platformed. He can speak but cannot be heard. Meanwhile the audience has no way of knowing either what they have not heard or that they have not been allowed to hear it.

Free speech is vital to human thriving because human beings are not ruled by our instincts, we are ruled by our reason. We are designed to speak and hear, think and reason. And how we think has a direct bearing on our wellbeing.

Wrong thinking causes misery. Right thinking causes us to thrive. While wrong information can lead to false thinking and misery, it doesn’t always. But the inability to get the right information will most certainly do so.

That’s why the First Amendment allows for all speech—even wrong speech—to make sure that the truth cannot be silenced. The censorship of right information is a greater threat than the dissemination of false information.

The American Library Association (ALA) collaborates annually with the American Book Sellers Association and the National Association of College Stores to oppose the suppression of certain books. Since 1982 they have used Banned Books Week to oppose censorship of this kind.

The ALA is so afraid of censorship that it even opposes parents and who would like the library to protects children from the pervasive sexualizing of our culture. Its recent annual conference included workshops on how to circumvent guidance from library patrons on what they would like to see promoted.

Meanwhile, the ALA website that promotes Banned Books Week is utterly silent on the most powerful form of censorship that the world has ever seen. Amazon.com, the world’s largest retailer of books, started banning books with specific content in March of 2017.

They began with “revisionist histories.” Then, early this year, banned white nationalist authors. In March 2019, Amazon banned a book by Tommy Robinson, a popular British speaker. Shortly after that, it censored books that questioned vaccinations. Most recently, Amazon banned all books written by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a psychologist who has written books on how to help people struggling against unwanted same-sex attraction.

Notice the pattern. The first books banned were written by fringe authors who taught a version of history rejected by almost everyone. Then, nearly two years passed to let customer get used to censorship.

With this groundwork laid, Amazon started banning more views. They began with the more fringe and gradually encroached on wider and wider audiences. The most recent victim was a respected psychologist who has died and is unable to defend his name. Who will be next? Where will it end?

You may disagree with every author banned by Amazon. Still, every American should be concerned. If Amazon considers banned books harmful, why has it continued to use the First Amendment in defense of books promoting pedophilia and violence? While the Constitution allows falsehoods to be spoken so that truth is not accidentally silenced, Amazon bans acknowledged truth while ensuring that falsehood is promoted.

If the ALA is serious about fighting censorship, it should publicize and criticize Amazon’s book-banning at least as much as it criticizes parents who are concerned to keeps the library safe for their children. As long as the ALA remains silent on Amazon’s book-banning, its Banned Book Week looks unserious and weighted for titanic corporations against parents.

Amazon’s censorship should be called out by the ALA

Photo by Fred Kearney on Unsplash

Censorship is defined as, “[T]he suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.”

In Colonial America the threat of censorship was primarily the punishment of newspaper editors and pamphleteers who wrote against the British government. In one such case, in 1734, Andrew Hamilton defended a New York City printer who had published against the corrupt governor of New York. In the trial, Hamilton famously said, “truth cannot be libel.”

Against this background, the very First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Despite these explicit protections, there have been repeated attempts to censor speech. Shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, Congress passed the short-lived “Alien and Sedition Acts” that punished certain speech against the President and Congress. Similarly, during the First World War another Sedition Act prohibited speech against the war effort. Both wartime laws expired after the war.

The Smith Act of 1940 which prohibits the forceful overthrow of either U.S. or state government was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court since it also prohibits “advocating” for such overthrow.

In the lead-up to the Civil War, we saw a different form of censorship. Advocates for the freedom of slaves in the south were using the U. S. Mail to send pamphlets to people in the slave states. The Postmaster General used his control of the postal service to block delivery of these materials from 1830 until the outbreak of the Civil War.

Prior to this, the federal government had not used its power to address public morals. This dark chapter in American history showed how a neutral delivery platform could be used to mute one side of a debate on public morality. The fact that it came down on exactly the wrong side of the debate stands as a stark reminder that those who wield the most political power will not reliably wield that power for good.

While the various sedition acts suppressed speech by punishing it after the fact, the Postmaster’s censorship worked to prevent and restrict speech before it could be heard. This second form of censorship is far more insidious than the first.

The threat of punishment may discourage speech, but it cannot muzzle it. Those with courage to speak out can still do so and defend themselves in court. But censorship that prevents certain words from being heard is impossible to counter. A courageous speaker is simply de-platformed and unable to speak. Meanwhile the audience has no way of knowing either what they have not been allowed to hear or that they have not been allowed to hear it.

Why is free speech important, in the first place? Speech is vital to human thriving because human beings are rational beings. We are designed to speak and hear, think and reason. We are not ruled by our instincts, but by our minds. How we think has a direct bearing on our wellbeing.

Wrong thinking causes misery. Right thinking causes us to thrive. Getting the wrong information has the possibility that it might lead to false thinking and human misery. But the inability to get the right information will most certainly do so. That’s why the censorship of right information is a greater threat than the dissemination of false information. The First Amendment allows for all speech—even wrong speech—to make absolutely sure that the truth cannot be silenced.

Displayed in the Young Adult section
of the Kemmerer Branch
of the Lincoln County Library

Since 1982, the American Library Association (ALA) has collaborated with the American Book Sellers Association and the National Association of College Stores to promote a Banned Books Week each September. This annual observance calls attention to books that are morally objectionable, and shames parent- and citizen-groups who have asked for them to be kept out of the children’s and Young Adult section of the library.

For the ALA, parents who would like the library to be an environment that protects children from the pervasive sexualizing of our culture are the enemy. Their annual conference in June included numerous workshops on how to thwart and circumvent guidance from their own patrons on what they would like to see on library shelves.

Meanwhile, the ALA website that promotes Banned Books Week is utterly silent on the most powerful form of censorship that the world has ever seen. Amazon.com, the world’s largest retailer of books, began banning books with specific content beginning in March of 2017. The first general category of banned books was “revisionist histories” of the holocaust.

Then, early this year Amazon banned books from a number of white nationalist authors. By March, it had banned a book by Tommy Robinson, a conservative British activist. Shortly after that, it removed numerous books that raised concern about vaccines. Most recently, in early July, Amazon banned all books written by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a psychologist who has written books on how to help people struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction.

Tommy Robinson

Notice the pattern. The first books to be banned were by fringe authors who taught a version of history rejected by almost everyone. Then, almost two years were allowed to pass. This let Amazon customers adapt to the new normal.

With this groundwork laid, Amazon coordinated the next batch of bannings with the de-platforming of Alex Jones, a fiery speaker known for some wild conspiracy theories. While having a far wider audience than holocaust deniers, people loosely categorized with him were relatively easy targets who could not mount much of a pushback.

Next came Tommy Robinson. He is closer to the mainstream, but not well known enough to cause much stir. Next to be banned were the anti-vaxxers. Most recently, the axe came down on a respected psychologist who has died and is unable to defend his name. Who will be next? And where will it end?

You may not agree with any of the authors who have been banned so far. Still, you should be concerned by what Amazon has not banned. Are books promoting pedophilia and violence less troubling than books against vaccinations and holocaust denial? Amazon apparently thinks so since it has defended the former by the First Amendment while banning the latter.

While the U.S. Constitution allows falsehoods to be spoken so that truth is not accidentally silenced, Amazon bans acknowledged truth to ensure that falsehood is promoted. That’s not a very endearing quality in a bookseller.

Thankfully, most of the books Amazon bans are still available from their nearest competitor, Barnes & Noble. Still, they are substantially more difficult to obtain—especially for those who live far from the city. Worse, those searching Amazon’s site, while unaware of their book-banning, will never even know what information is being withheld from them.

What can you do? First, learn for yourself which books Amazon has banned. Second, let them know what you think. Third, patronize sellers that still understand and support the First Amendment.

Finally, you might ask your local library to raise the alarm during this September’s Banned Book Week. Sadly, the ALA has remained silent in the face of Amazon’s censorship. In so doing, it has become complicit in the very book-banning that it decries.

WTE: Justice is right. Capital punishment teaches the value of life

Daniel Lee Lewis kidnapped William Mueller, his wife and stepdaughter. He tortured and killed them, one at a time, because he believed they could tell him where they had hidden gold and other treasure. This was only his most heinous crime of a seven-year career that included another murder, a public shootout with police and burglary. 

Gutwrenching as it is to read about these evils, it is necessary background for a sober discussion of capital punishment. Details too terrible to print combined with Lee’s lack of remorse and a long history of violence to convince the jury that justice required the death penalty. This judgment has been reaffirmed by every possible appeal for two decades.

Attorney General William Barr announced the scheduling of his execution, along with five others, last Thursday, July 25. These will be the first federal executions since 2003. That’s a good reason to think about what we’re doing.

In fact, there have only been three federal executions since 1963. Executions are rare because the death penalty is typically reserved for the most heinous murders. They are made rarer still by individual players who thwart decisions reached by layers of careful deliberation. Media outlets that reported Barr’s announcement as lifting some formal “moratorium” misled their readers.

After 2003, pharmaceutical companies conspired to keep the Bureau of Prisons from procuring the anesthetic needed for the procedure. Then, Attorney General Eric Holder deliberately neglected to schedule any executions during his tenure. Most recently, he ordered a review of all death penalty procedures. Barr’s announcement signaled that the five-year review is now complete, resulting in new protocols and a resumption of carrying out the law.

While almost every culture has exercised capital punishment, those influenced by Christianity limit it in fundamental ways. Two key biblical passages are invoked. Romans 13:4 teaches that God Himself gives governments the “sword” to “execute wrath on him who practices evil” (NKJV). This, in turn, is grounded on God’s command to Noah after the Flood, “[w]hoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6).

Fundamental to Christian political thought is that “evil” is not an arbitrary construct, but an objective reality seen in nature. From this, Western Civilization has seen governments as “ministers of God” to punish evil on His behalf. When a nation forgets or denies this fact, it does not become more just. It fails in its primary task to punish evil.

Perhaps this explains why those who were first to oppose the death penalty were avowed atheists. Robespierre, the henchman of the French Revolution, wrote a pamphlet against the death penalty before he sentenced 40,000 countrymen to death. Likewise, the Bolsheviks initially banned capital punishment in early 1917 before slaughtering somewhere between eight and 60 million citizens over the next 70 years.

All agree that to abolish the death penalty is to make a statement. Some believe it’s a statement that life is too valuable to take. Others conclude that the lives of the victims are not valuable enough to avenge. Whatever it teaches about the lives of victim and perpetrator, it chiefly teaches something about the source and authority of government.

Laws and regulations can only be enforced by those with power over your bodily life. If government does not have the legitimate, God-given authority to take life, it has no legitimate authority at all: it has no authority to wage just wars, nor does it have authority to enforce just laws.

Atheists and non-Christian citizens need not fear the specter of a theocracy dependent upon some private revelation. Since governments are established to rule believer and unbeliever alike, just laws can only rest on “the Laws of Nature” and not upon the revelation of the Gospel.

Far from establishing a totalitarian theocracy, a government that recognizes itself as a servant of God will necessarily be a limited government. If a government is not limited by God, what else can limit it?

Take God out of the equation and governments tend toward totalitarianism. This was seen in the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, and wherever communism raises its head. Capital punishment, thoughtfully considered, keeps a society fully aware that governments are subservient to transcendent principles and are not gods unto themselves.

Our concern to exercise this awesome power responsibly will make every participant in the justice system humble and careful. The lessons of 1700 years of Western Law must be followed scrupulously to ensure that innocents are not mistakenly put to death. But it is precisely for the protection of innocent life that some crimes require capital punishment.

The pending execution of five human beings is a terrible thing. What would be more terrible still is to deny that just societies have the right to do it, and the responsibility to do it justly.

The Federalist: How Capital Punishment Preserves The Value Of Human Life

 

 

Capital punishment acknowledges both the existence of objective evil and human government’s responsibility to execute justice. To conflate it with the killing of the innocent is reprehensible.

Daniel Lee Lewis was involved in his first murder when he was 17 years old. It was July 24, 1990. Enraged by a teenage party prank, he beat Joseph Wavra unconscious. Then Lewis ran to get a knife and helped Wayra’s murderer hide the crime. This was only the beginning of Lewis’ seven-year crime spree that included burglary, bombings, public shootouts, and murder. 

Continue reading on the Federalist.