Table of Contents

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”FDR (21-Nov-1933)




All |
26 laws

1 / 26   Anti-Circumvention: Intellectual Property - Copyright - Plutocratic Corporate Enforcement

2 / 26   Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004)

First, the potential harms from reversal outweigh those of leaving the injunction in place by mistake. Extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech may result where, as here, a prosecution is a likely possibility but only an affirmative defense is available, so that speakers may self-censor rather than risk the perils of trial. Cf. Playboy Entertainment Group, supra, at 817. The harm done from letting the injunction stand pending a trial on the merits, in contrast, will not be extensive. Second, there are substantial factual disputes remaining in the case, including a serious gap in the evidence as to the filtering software’s effectiveness. By allowing the preliminary injunction to stand and remanding for trial, the Court requires the Government to shoulder its full constitutional burden of proof respecting the less restrictive alternative argument, rather than excuse it from doing so. Third, the factual record does not reflect current technological reality—a serious flaw in any case involving the Internet, which evolves at a rapid pace. It is reasonable to assume that technological developments important to the First Amendment analysis have occurred in the five years since the District Court made its factfindings.

3 / 26   Australia Covid-19 Health Authority Laws

4 / 26   Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U. S. 678, 701 [1977]

[W]here obscenity is not involved, we have consistently held that the determinations of: "what appeals to the 'prurient interest' or is 'patently offensive' ... are essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists."


5 / 26   Challenging Federal Vaccine Mandates

6 / 26   Citizens United (2010) on Corporate Finance in Politics Protected by 1st Amendment

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission argued: 24-Mar-2009 decided 21-Jan-2010. Opening the floodgates for corporate money in politics (including lobbying, campaign finance, etc) by 5-4 judgment equating corporate spend with First Amendment (free speech) for the first time.


7 / 26   Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)

8 / 26   Ex Post Facto - Criminal and Civil Law

  • Ex Post Facto Law
  • Calder v Bull (1798) [US Supreme Court]
  • Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited in the UK by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory
  • Parliamentary Sovereignty Uber Alles (2005)
  • laws

    9 / 26   Gender Identity Law

    Is it a crime in the UK, potentially increasing sentence, to misgender a trans prisoner? Can a male self-identify as a female in the UK and be placed in a women's prison?

  • "No. Misgendering doesn't increase sentence."
  • "No. Males can't self-identify as female to be placed in a women's prison."
  • Justice Minister Lord Wolfson of Tredegar QC (2021): "Incidents where a prisoner uses incorrect pronouns for another prisoner will be considered on a case-by-case basis, in line with the Prisoner Discipline Procedures policy and the Prison Rules. Prisoners may sometimes make an honest mistake in relation to pronouns and disciplinary action would not be appropriate in those circumstances. However, if an officer deems it appropriate to place a prisoner on report [for violence between inmates], the rule against using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour – Prison Rule 51(20) – stipulates that where an offence motivated by another person’s protected characteristic(s) under the Equality Act 2010 is an aggravating factor it may merit referral to an Independent Adjudicator."
  • Under Prison Service policy, any prisoner who has legally changed their gender, and been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to prove it, will automatically be sent to a jail appropriate to their new gender. A prisoner who identifies as the opposite sex but does not have a GRC will initially go a prison for their old, legally-recognised gender.
  • Original misconception? Inside Time (Newspaper for Prisoners and Detainees): Women face punishment for using wrong pronouns (8-Oct-2021)
  • Information Sheet for Transgender People in Prison (UK)
  • laws

    10 / 26   Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974)

    "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas."

    Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate. As James Madison pointed out in the Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798: "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." A rule of strict liability that compels a publisher or broadcaster to guarantee the accuracy of his factual assertions may lead to intolerable self-censorship. Allowing the media to avoid liability only by proving the truth of all injurious statements does not accord adequate protection to First Amendment liberties.

    The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters. Per Supreme Court Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974).


    11 / 26   Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1985] of the UK House of Lords

    Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1985] passed by UK House of Lords (17-Oct-1985)


    12 / 26   H.R.1319 - American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

    US Congressional Act: H.R.1319 - American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (passed by the 117th Congress - effective 11-Mar-2021)

    13 / 26   H.R.748 - CARES Act [2020] of the 116th Congress

    H.R.748 - CARES Act [2020] legislated by the 116th House of Congress (2019-2020)


    14 / 26   Hyde Amendment (1976)

    15 / 26   Intellectual Property - Copyright Law

    16 / 26   Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

    "Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It also must appeal to the prurient interest in the view of an average person according to community standards, and it must describe sexual conduct or excretory functions in an offensive way."


    17 / 26   New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

    To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.

    The First Amendment as it relates to libel laws, is that seditious libel – criticism of government and public officials – falls beyond the police power of the State [273-276]. In a democratic society such as ours, the citizen has the privilege of criticizing his government and its officials.


    18 / 26   Ocean Shipping Reform Act (1998)

    The OSRA of 1998 eliminated a system that had kept shipping relatively stable through booms and busts. Prior to the OSRA, the U.S. regulated ocean shipping as a public utility, based on the Shipping Act of 1916.

    Merchant Marine Act of 1920 aka ‘the Jones Act,’ both designed to protect the domestic ship production industry.

    With destructive competition, entire high fixed cost industries first over-invest in capacity. Then firms become unprofitable as they undercut one another, undermining safety standards, system reliability, and worker pay. Eventually there are mass bankruptcies of weaker firms, and consolidation as the strong buy the weak and establish pricing power. That’s what happened with railroads in the 19th century and airlines in the 1980s. The remaining firms became monopolistic, cut less trafficked routes, raised prices, and discriminated against different classes and regions.


    19 / 26   Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)

    20 / 26   Sureme Court: Mississippi v Jackson Women's Health [2020]

    21 / 26   The Great Nation of Futurity (1839)

    John L. O'Sullivan on Manifest Destiny, 1839 Excerpted from "The Great Nation of Futurity" in the United States Democratic Review, Volume 6, Issue 23


    22 / 26   UK Civil Recovery

    British legal perspective on Impact of Acquittal on Civil Recovery Proceedings in light of latest legislation and precedent

    23 / 26   United States v Alvarez (2012) | Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656, 660

    The Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.


    24 / 26   United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000)

    Case involved a content-based restriction designed to protect minors from viewing harmful materials. The Court there concluded that, absent a showing that a less restrictive technological alternative already available to parents would not be as effective as a blanket speech restriction, the more restrictive option preferred by Congress could not survive strict scrutiny. Id., at 826. The reasoning of Playboy Entertainment Group, and the holdings and force of this Court’s precedents, compel the Court to affirm the preliminary injunction here. To do otherwise would be to do less than the First Amendment commands. Id., at 830. Pp. 6–12.

    25 / 26   US Voting Rights

  • Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966) was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
  • "...a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."
  • Smith v. Allwright (1944) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to voting rights and, by extension, racial desegregation. It overturned the Texas state law that authorized parties to set their internal rules, including the use of white primaries.
  • laws

    26 / 26   USA v Julian Assange - UK Court Rulings

  • USA Extradition Request v Assange: EXTRADITION DENIED! District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser Ruling (4-Jan-2021)
  • USA Appeal v Assange: DISTRICT COURT RULING OVERTURNED! High Court Justice Burnett Ruling (10-Dec-2021)
  • "Justice Burnett's bs ruling relied heavily on bigger picture continuity of diplomatic good faith relations between the US and UK. Does this not make a strong case for an appeal on Article 4 grounds, i.e. key aspects of the case ARE being treated as political extradition request?"
  • Extradition Treaty Between United Kingdom and United States (26-Apr-2007)
  • laws



    “So much of political thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.”  George Orwell


    “If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.”  Thomas Jefferson

    "We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car—have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south. ... when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals."

    Ross Perot (1992)