Thoughts on the News 5/23/17

It is write-on week at the law school. Classes are over, grades are starting to roll in, and it's still a couple weeks until my summer internship starts. Sure, I'm spending hours each day reading cases and writing and perfecting my case note to ensure I get into Law Review next semester,* but I just don't feel I have quite enough work to do. To take a break from all the reading and writing, I'm - well, I'm doing more reading and writing. But it's on a different topic, so you know I'm not crazy or anything.
I just wanted to share some quick thoughts on some First Amendment-related stuff that's happened over the past week.

1. Tuesday, May 16: Turkish leader/thin-skinned Gollum Erdogan orders his thugs to beat up protesters outside the Turkish ambassador's home in Washington, DC. So far as I know, the White House still has said nothing about this ally of ours violently attacking people on U.S. soil for exercising one of our most basic and cherished rights. Naturally, Trump is much more content to lick the boots of leaders whom he wishes to emulate than to criticize them for even the most blatant acts of violence.
2. Monday, May 22: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross praises the lack of protesters in Saudi Arabia during Trump's visit, dismissing as a "theory" that perhaps no one was protesting because such acts are punishable by beheading in our oh-so-enlightened ally's country. He stated, after the interviewer suggested that maybe no one was protesting because protesting is illegal in Saudi Arabia, "In theory, that could be true. But, boy, there was certainly no sign of it. . . . The mood was a genuinely good mood." Yes, it's very similar to the omnipresent "good mood" in North Korea. I swear those people are always so happy and smiling!
3. Tuesday, May 23: Arizona Governor Douglas Ducey vetoes a bill that would have extended First Amendment protections for student journalists, stating that, while he is "a strong supporter of free speech and a free press," "this bill could create unintended consequences." Lord knows what those consequences might be other than, y'know, some kids exercising their right to free speech. Sounds like Ducey is one of those people who supports only theoretical free speech.

The vast amounts of praise that Trump and those under him heap on the authoritarian leaders of the world is disturbing, to say the least. I sympathize with the fact that the President faces harsh criticism, including some that's undeserved, but that is no excuse for fantasizing about tossing out the First Amendment. It astounds me that this country has gotten to a point where we are consistently electing people who not only have a history of undermining our rights (the past... several administrations) but now aren't even pretending to like the principles our country was founded on. 

The Enlightenment is almost completely dead. Postmodernism has taken over, and we all just need to hang on and keep talking until the pendulum swings back.

UPDATE: Ah, fuck. See? What did I just say? Trump was outright praising Duterte for murdering over 7,000 of his own citizens. The man is nothing more than a wannabe despot.

-------------------------------------------------

* Considering my GPA and generally pretty good writing skills, I doubt this will be a problem, but there is an added incentive to write an excellent case note because the best one will be published. Needless to say, I want to be published.

Your Vote Matters

I have always been something of a third-party supporter. I used to be Green, but then they started going all SJW (or maybe they always were, and I only just started noticing it). Now I'm a registered Libertarian. I don't agree with everything in the Libertarian Party, but right now it seems to be the best party to voice support for. And registering as a member of a third party is a big way to show support for that party.

Unfortunately, the two-party system is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that most people can't fathom the concept of a third-party candidate winning a major election. Sure, we've got a small handful of them in Congress, and they do win state and local elections, but a third-party candidate could never win the Presidency, right?

Well, maybe, maybe not. It depends on if people vote for one. But Americans have this math-centered idea that a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for whichever of the two big-party candidates they like the least. It makes sense on a very basic level, but it's a very defeatist way of viewing the world. And it's also a strange outlook for us, considering how much Americans despise math.

So, most Americans won't vote for a third-party candidate because that's somehow "throwing your vote away." I had one person recently tell me that voting for Gary Johnson is effectively the same as voting for Donald Trump. Another dismissively noted that I was "just voting on principle." The first one's wrong, the second one's right, but with the wrong attitude.

Let's get this straight, first of all: a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson and no one else. But, if we take the flawed logic that a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a Republican or Democrat and apply it to this situation, a vote for Johnson is more a vote for Clinton than for Trump. People who might otherwise vote for Trump if they only had two choices, when given a third choice, are more likely than those who would otherwise vote for Clinton to vote for Johnson. Therefore, as Johnson gets more votes, the number of voters for Trump goes down faster than the number of voters for Clinton. Ergo, a vote for Johnson makes it more likely that Clinton will win, assuming Johnson himself doesn't get enough votes to win.

There's always this assumption that the third-party candidate can't win. But why not? It seems almost too obvious to bother saying, but we keep ignoring the fact that if enough people vote for a third-party candidate, that candidate will win the election.

Yes, I'm voting on principle: the principle that I should vote for the person I want to be President. Based on recent poll numbers, the majority of people don't like Clinton and the majority of people don't like Trump. Now, obviously, there are few people who like both and many people who like one but not the other. But there are also a lot of people who dislike both main-party candidates.

If you don't want Clinton to be President, don't vote for Clinton.

If you don't want Trump to be President, don't vote for Trump.

If you don't want to live your life in fear, don't let fear guide your vote.

As far as I'm concerned, both Clinton and Trump would make horrible Presidents. Both have a long and short history of lying and cheating, both have spent at least the last 25 years "playing the game," purely for their own benefit without the least regard for the good of the public, both want to destroy the First Amendment, both hate due process and separation of powers, both think the best solution to everything is creating more laws, and the cherry on top the steaming pile of shit: both hate minorities.

Honestly, I see very little difference between the two candidates. If I didn't have other choices and didn't have the option to abstain or write in "No Confidence," I think I would vote for Trump. Only because he's such a huge liar that he might go back on everything he's said during the campaign and end up a half-decent President. It's a long shot by far, but it's certainly more likely than Clinton going against her natural inclinations toward totalitarianism.

But I don't have to make that choice. I can vote for the person I want to be President.

On the other hand, we have people who vote for strange, bizarre reasons who don't actually think that what they're voting for will win. Take, for example, this tweet:

With leave voters in Manchester for BBCNews -most told us they woke up thinking "what have I done?" & didn't actually expect the uk to leave

— Louisa Compton (@louisa_compton) June 24, 2016

If you can't read it, it says, in part, "most told us they woke up thinking "what have I done?" & didn't actually expect the uk to leave," of course talking about those who voted in favor of Brexit.

Why would you vote for something you don't want to happen? Why would you vote for a Presidential candidate who you don't want to be President? Because there's a worse option? Between Clinton and Trump, there is not worse option. They both want to take away your rights. Yes, your rights, you specifically. Freedom of the press is your right, freedom of religion is your right, freedom of speech is your right, the right to bear arms is your right, due process of law is your right. Maybe you don't choose to exercise these rights, but just because you don't choose to do something now doesn't mean that you should want those rights taken away from you forever. And it will be forever. Once it's taken away, the chances of it coming back are slim to none.

And don't not vote, either. That's letting other people run your life for you. Vote as though your vote will decide everything. Vote for who you honestly want to win. Because that's what your vote means. It means, "I want this person to be President for the next four years."

Vote like you've got a spine.