Previous month:
November 2011
Next month:
January 2012


Holding in anger is the virtue of slaves. The Christian bias against anger exists because early Christians were slaves rather than masters. If early Christians had not been forced to hold their tongues (being gentle as doves and sneaky as snakes), Western men would have a healthier relationship with anger. 

Aristotle approved of anger, when at "the right time, and for the right purpose and in the right way." As Dr. Bruce Banner was fond of saying, "don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." People wouldn't listen, and yet they'd still blame the Hulk.

It is usually scoundrels and passive-aggressive who preach against anger. It is of course in their best interests to disarm the very people they seek to harm.

I enjoy being angry. It fuels my soul and moves my body. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. Please make me angry.

Private Actors Are the Biggest Threat to Free Speech

When most people think of the First Amendment, they think of the evils of government censorship. Yet the current greatest threat to free speech does not come from the government. It comes from litigious private parties. It's a dangerous threat because it's stealthy.

If the DOJ threatened to shut down Crime & Federalism, you'd all be livid. Everyone recognizes that the government should not be allowed to threaten free speech. 

Fits would be thrown and apologies would be made.

What if a court threatened to shut me down. Would the threat be as obvious?

When someone files a frivolous lawsuit, he's trying to use the power of government to do what no other branch of government would do.

What happens when a private person tries using the power of the court to shut down a website?

One victim of private censorship is Clayton Cramer, a leading historian on the Second Amendment.

Clayton Cramer was almost forced to shutter his blog after Righthaven, sued him for copyright infringement

Right Haven was a copyright troll. They purchased all of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Denver Post's copyrights. They'd then troll the web, looking for websites containing LVR and Post articles.

Righthaven had many victims. Many victims included small website operators who did not themselves reproduce any copyrighted articles. Instead, commenters posted articles to the websites. Although clearly a website owner cannot be held liable for infringement

Righthaven is almost dead, because the Randazza Firm kicked the shit out of it. 

But not everyone can afford legal help. Many people allowed Righthaven to extort it, as a purely economic matter. If defending a lawsuit costs $20,000 that you don't have, then putting a $5,00 settlement on a credid card makes sense (especially when you consider that the maxium exposure for copyright infringement is $150,000).

Even your humble narrator has faced threats of litigation, and actual litigation. Joseph Rakofsky, another private actor, filed a frivolous lawsuit against the American Bar Association, Washington Post, and about 80 other people - including me. (I'm proud to disclose that the Randazza Firm, the lawyers who shut down Righthaven, are defending me against Rakofsky's frivolous lawsuit.) 

Now some of you will be hard asses. "Freedom isn't free." Cute sloan that is ignorant of constitutional text. Speech is supposed to be free. The First Amendment protects, after all, "freedom of speech." Read the Constitution. It's all in there.

If something is causing maritial strife, or if some parent has to choose beteween college fund payment and legal bills, there's a major problem.

Yet as highly as I think of myself (count the I's in this sentence!), I'm also humble enough to realize that I read far more than I write.  People who run most websites are surprisingly civil, middle-class people who offer fascinating and diverse perspectives on life.

They also have family relationships to preserve. They had kids who need braces. They, unlike the Washington Post, don't have lawyers on retainer. Righthaven poses the greatest danger to the people we need most.

Not many of the sites I read are run by guys like me. Most are, you know, not looking for a fight. Sue me. I'll fight like hell, and if you think a civil lawsuit scares me, you haven't done much dilligence. Lawsuits only add to my life story.

But I'm a man with a calloused heart. Should speech only be free for guys like me?

Should speech not be free for a 17-year old

Government censorhip is an evil we all recognize, unite to defend against, and thus usually defeat.

We haven't paid attention to harm private litigants cause. We need to start, we need to unite, and we need to take the firehouse to sewage like Joseph Rakofsky, Marc Stephens, and Righthaven.

The World Still Isn't Ready for Nietzsche

It took less than 30 minutes to understand why the world isn't ready for Nietzsche.

The second lecture in the Great Courses series, "Will to Power: The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche," wasn't about any of Nietzsche's core concepts. There was no mention of the death of God, or the life of the ubermensch. 

There was no discussion of Nietzsche's overcoming of tremendous sickness. Most of us lack the will to write a single book. Nietzche's will to write broke through walls of poor health:

His eyesight was wretched. Doctors advised him to read and write as little as possible, but he did not heed their advice, had terrible migrane headaches, took all sorts of pills, was sick to his stomach much of the time and in altogether terrible health.

No, the liberal professors from the University of Texas, Austin would have nothing to say of Nietzsche's triumphs though sickness.

Instead, they must let you know that Nietzsche is safe. Here is Lecture 2:

2. Quashing the Rumors About Nietzsche
Professors Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins invalidate the spurious rumors surrounding Nietzsche, for example, that he was insane, misogynistic, nihilistic, anti-Semitic, power-mad, relativistic, and amoral.

Anyone who would need those rumors quashed isn't ready for Nietzsche.