This summer, the 9th Circuit Court in California is weighing the question of whether companies have the right to take preemptive legal action against peaceful protesters for hypothetical future protests. This will be an extraordinary decision that could have a significant impact on every American’s First Amendment rights.
The case, Shell Offshore Inc. vs. Greenpeace, was filed by Shell Oil Company. Last summer, Shell assumed –based on conjecture — that Greenpeace USA would protest the company’s drilling in the Alaskan Arctic. Shell asked the 9th Circuit court for a preemptive injunction and restraining order against Greenpeace USA [Full disclosure: Philip Radford is the executive director of Greenpeace USA].
Despite Greenpeace’s appeal, the court granted the injunction for the entire duration of the drilling period, a decision which effectively gave a federal blessing to the company’s wish to do its controversial work in secret.
Greenpeace has asked the court for a full review, and this summer, the court will decide the ultimate fate of the case.If the court rules in Shell’s favor, it would have a profound chilling effect on First Amendment rights across the country. Nothing would stop other corporations from taking similar preemptive legal action against anyone they deem to be likely protesters. That could be an environmental group, it could be a civil rights group, or it could be a Tea Party group — or anyone in between.
Grist
How Shell is trying to send a chill through activist groups across the country
Ben Jealous, CEO of the NAACP, and Philip Radford, executive director of Greenpeace USA
Taste of life in a Libertarian utopia where property rights are recognized but not human rights and civil rights.
Citizens United recognized that money talks and so corporations have the right to free expression by through legalized bribery. Social protest? Not so much.
Pretty twisted meaning of "liberty." Sociopathic?
7 comments:
where property rights are recognized but not human rights
Another big load of crap. If Shell is polluting someone else's property or body, that's either a tort or a crime and it should be enjoined and/or punished forthwith.
You guys have to lie to make your points because otherwise you know you'd lose the argument.
You have to be kidding. Who has the deep pockets to go up against the legal teams of a large corporation, and what is the expected outcome when judges tend to favor business and SCOTUS as been packed with Chamber of Commerce flaks. Nonsensically idealistic argument that disregards reality.
"Deep pockets" are required because we have an idiotic and corrupt government court system (as an officer of the court, I know this) while government schools fail to teach people what their basic rights are and how to enforce them. Thanks mostly to 100 years of "progressives" destroying personal and property rights through the court and educational systems.
Quit applying current "standards" of the utterly corrupt government system to strict enforcement of the NAP. It's a completely dishonest argument. But, of course, it's all you guys have.
Bank accountability activists have already seized on the revelations. “This is not surprising, but absolutely sickening,” said Peggy Mears, organizer for the Home Defenders League. “Maybe finally our courts and elected officials will stand with communities over Wall Street and prosecute, and then lock up, these criminals.”
Sadly, it’s hard to raise hopes of that happening. Past experience shows that our top regulatory and law enforcement officials are primarily interested in covering for Wall Street’s crimes. These well-sourced allegations amount to an accusation of Bank of America stealing thousands of homes, and lying to the government about it. Homeowners who did everything asked of them were nevertheless pushed into foreclosure, all to fortify profits on Wall Street. There’s a clear path to punish Bank of America for this conduct. If it doesn’t result in prosecutions, it will once again confirm the sorry excuse for justice we have in America.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/18/bank_of_america_whistleblowers_bombshell_we_were_told_to_lie/?source=newsletter
This is the inevitable result of allowing voting about fundamental rights and granting bureaucrats discretion to "regulate". Strict application of simple-to-understand basic principles like the NAP and the prohibition on fraud without exception as to whose ox is being gored is the solution.
But "progressives" and Keynesians are either hopelessly dumb or hopelessly naive about the nature of the discretionary regulatory state which is the result of their belief in "rule by experts". Since it is impossible a priori to define "good" regulation from "bad" regulation, the courts end up giving carte blanche to whatever crony capitalist insane regulation is spewed out by the legislature or regulatory agencies.
This is the inevitable result of allowing voting about fundamental rights and granting bureaucrats discretion to "regulate". Strict application of simple-to-understand basic principles like the NAP and the prohibition on fraud without exception as to whose ox is being gored is the solution.
Actually I agree with this. Instead of discretionary regulation we need outright statutes against fraud and anti-social behavior. Instead of wielding a fine scalpel we throw up a wall which makes clear what the boundaries are.
There's a resaon that we have the system we have. Hamilton prevailed over Jefferson in centralizing government with the financially and industrially wealthy as the ruling elite in stead of the agricultural rentiers, as had been the case under feudalism. So a new elite based on capitalism, industrial and financial, came to power in the US and still holds power as the managerial class embedded in the owner class at the apex of the social, political and economic hierarchy. Laws are written and justice dispensed to maintain this order.
Of course, Hamilton didn't do this perversely. He admitted that he believed the British system was the globally superior system at the time and the US should emulate it in order to take a place in that world. The US is still playing out the initial conflicts in terms of power and privilege.
Again, we have the endless Keynesian and "progressive" distortion of language and concepts. We endure having Hamilton's evil crony system always described as "capitalism".
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=346
Post a Comment