Unpopular Opinion: Jury Duty can be used to take a stand for Free Speech.

I believe that in any trial, jurors should take into consideration either party's opposition to Free Speech. Someone who passively opposes Free Speech supports firing/blacklisting people for their Political Opinion (not genuine Hate Speech), and supports Deplatforming. Someone who actively opposes Free Speech has been involved in Firing, Blacklisting, and Deplatforming.

In my opinion, a defendant or accuser's active opposition to Free Speech should be important to jurors for the following reasons. First, someone who actively opposes our most Fundamental Human Rights should be seen as The Enemy of Humankind rather then a fellow citizen. Second, such person is morally bankrupt and thus capable of any wrong doing they are accused of. When we have no Free Speech, we are not really Free. He who has no right to voice his grievances has no rights. Those who oppose our Free Speech take away all our rights and our personhood.

Taking a stand for Free Speech may seem as a party issue, but it is not completely the case. In USA 2020, Totalitarian Left has the power and popularity to censor Free Speech. Nevertheless, Libertarian Left still exists and supports all Human Rights. In USA 2020, Totalitarian Right has been pushed to the fringe of the fringe. Nevertheless, when they had power they were considerably more vicious then Totalitarian Left. In places where they still have power, they are as vicious. Opposition to Freedom can come from either direction, yet it is always evil.

If at least 15% of American population is committed to defending our Free Speech, we can make a great difference. If those who oppose Free Speech would be aware that their evil actions would follow them if they are accused of any crime and have to face a jury, then they would be less likely to actively Cancel or Deplatform people.

I understand that my opinion would be unpopular not only among those who support Cancel Culture, Censorship, and Deplatforming, but also among those who support Freedom. Nevertheless, I hope to persuade at least some people that my opinion is valid.

Jury Nullification is not my original idea. It existed for centuries. In USA in 1920s, most jurors practiced Jury Nullification in trials for alcohol possession.

Some scholars and politicians support Jury Nullification. According to Wikipedia article Jury Nullification in the United States,

I am not aware of any juror in the history of USA who was convicted for Jury Nullification. Perhaps I do not know. It seems that the only person in USA who was convicted for advocating Jury Nullification is Keith Eric Wood who directly handed out fliers to potential jurors. He was convicted of misdemeanor.

 

Jury nullififation is a perfectly legal process wherein the juror finds the defendant guilty of breaking the law, but declines to find him guilty nonetheless.

Keep it quiet if you're thinking about it.

 

So, your argument is that the 1st Amendment should be expanded to include private enterprise? Good luck with that.

 

Ron Paul actively advocates Jury Nullification.

Hopefully, the idea of Jury Nullification as a tool against Cancel Culture can be accepted by at least 15% of American population. Then it will become a powerful tool for Freedom.

 

It would be nice if more states protected employees from being fired for political beliefs. Here:

My original nano-essay, however, is not about Federal Government. It is about ways in which private citizens can use their jury duty to fight Cancel Culture.

 

Which has nothing to do with free speech. Your OP is a bit confusing.

 

My point was that any citizen who opposes Cancel Culture and supports Freedom can perform activism for these causes if they are on a jury where either side has been a part of Cancel Culture and deplatforming.

 

Still doesn't make sense. Free speech is derived from the 1st Amendment, which prohibits government from passing laws to abolish it. I'm not seeing how this applies to your scenario. Since abortion is a constitutional right, should pro-lifers be targeted as well? Gun grabbers? Why should a jury consider these things rather than the evidence surrounding the trial?

 

I am not trying to amend any law.

I am advising private individuals who support Free Speech to recognize their enemies and to act accordingly in case of a jury duty.

 

So, you propose using our system of justice as a political hammer to what? Free the guilty? Imprison the innocent? Dumb idea. Our justice system would become a mockery, and rightfully so.

 

I understand that many people will disagree with me.

Hopefully the idea of seeing proponents of Censorship and Deplatforming as enemies rather then fellow citizens gains traction. Jury nullification is an opportunity to treat an enemy as such.

 

All of which becomes moot if the Democrats seize power. For the last 3+ years the Democrats have been in full blown Kangaroo Court mode and have made a complete mockery of the justice system by repeatedly trying Trump in the court of public opinion. They don't give a rat's ass about freedom, justice, or the Constitution. They have deliberately clouded the whole pandemic issue in another attempt to blame Trump and to shut down the economy. In some sort of wacked out pre emptive move they propose to get rid of the electoral college and in the same vain insist on mail-in voting. It's very obvious that they are going to try to rig the election. They're already seeding public opinion with ridiculous statements of what they'll do if Trump refuses to concede, why would anyone speculate on such a thing? They're always trying to manipulate opinion instead of letting facts speak for themselves. They resort to the most ridiculous, juvenile tactics because in their warped universe the American voter is a moron. Since 2008 they have foisted this alternate universe on America, it's time to get back to reality and preserve all of our freedoms.There's only two choices, to be America or something else. We will become something else if the Democrat's evil scheme ever prevails.

 

Civil trial yes, criminal trial not so much.

 

Jefferson saw the jury as being the best method yet designed by man to keep government within its lawful bounds.

Keith Wood was exonerated, after years, by Michigan Supreme Court.

https://fija.org/news-events/2020/j...ion-overturned-by-michigan-supreme-court.html

 

Check out that link I just provided regarding the case of Keith Wood in Michigan. He was arrested and prosecuted for passing out literature regarding rights found in the Bill Of Rights.

Years later the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in his favor. His was a case of free speech.

 

And when you're the defendant, do you want a fair trial, or do you want to be tried according to jury members' opinion of your politics?

The whole system would be nullified.

 

Civil trial is a good start. Hopefully at least some people would agree.

Criminal cases are the next step.

 

Once having been called for jury duty and during voir dire I was asked where I worked. When I named the mechanical department of the local newspaper I was asked if that might make me a subjective juror. I resented the inference and I replied I thought it might make me more objective. I was selected.

 

Great news! Thus advocating Jury nullification is not illegal.

 

For instance DePlatformer -- a known proponent of Censorship and Cancel Culture is accused of any crime -- like Fentanyl Possession. A Juror can make his/her decision based on DePlatformers evil character.

 

I know that 100% of those who support deplatforming and Cancel Culture will disagree with me.

I know that at least 50% of those who oppose deplatforming and Cancel Culture will disagree with me. If no one is serious about standing up for our Freedoms, our Freedoms will remain lost.

 

I am sorry I did not express my belief in a clear form -- I have Autism.

Given DePlatformer's opposition to Free Speech, an ideal juror would vote to convict. If the other 11 acquit, there is at least a hung jury.

I understand that many people will find my beliefs offensive.

 

All jurors should use the law and common sense when deciding their opinion whether guilty or not.