INTRODUCTION
[A] function of free speech under
our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high
purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with
conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and
challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound
unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom
of speech, though not absolute, ... is nevertheless protected against censorship and
punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a
serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or
unrest. ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For
the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures,
courts, or dominant political or community groups.
Terminello v.
City of Chicago, 337
U.S. 1, 4-5 (1949) (internal citations omitted).
The Supreme Court could have
added prosecutors to that list; their nearly unfettered discretion could allow them to
censor speech that they disagree with or find bothersome. For this reason, the First Amendment
constrains prosecutorial discretion.
From the very beginning of
Brewington's prosecution, the State has shown no concern for these principles. Brewington
may not have had the rhetorical skill of Thomas Paine, but like 18th Century pamphleteers, he
used a popular forum of expression in his time (here, the Internet) to complain about unfair
treatment by an oppressive system. This case is not just an appeal of a wrongful conviction. It is a
challenge to this Court to re-affirm the fundamental right of free expression.
To view the entire response by Brewington’s attorneys
to the state on Brewington’s appeal go to http://www.dadsfamilycourtexperience.com/Appellant%27s%20Reply.pdf
1 comment:
Dan may not be a very pleasant person, but a criminal? No. I've spoken to many folks and NO believes Dan threatened any one.
Post a Comment