Ron Paul on Section 230

When they talk about reform, watch out!

~ Ron Paul, "Dealing With Big Tech Censorship - With Jeff Deist," 11:00 mark, Ron Paul Liberty Report, January 14, 2021

Stephan Kinsella on regulating Big Tech over political censorship

No, the evil state should not be unleashed on the tech giants just because they are air headed liberal idiots.  No, they should not be subject to antitrust law.  No, they are not "part of the state."  No, their CDA §230 and DMCA copyright safe harbors should not be abolished... 

It's pathetic that these companies are acting so... illiberally.  They probably have more market power than they otherwise would, but for state interventions (like IP law).  But the only just solution is to shame them and build alternatives.

~ Stephan Kinsella, Facebook post, January 14, 2021

Rep. Andy Biggs on the second impeachment of President Trump

You believe that your hunger will be finally satiated by impeaching this president without completion of his full term of office.  Instead of stopping the Trump train, his movement will grow stronger, for you will have made him a martyr.

~ Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), leader of the pro-Trump House Freedom Caucus who had embraced the “Stop the Steal” effort, January 13, 2021

Lawrence Reed on open-mindedness

If you dodge and weave to avoid principles so you can claim to have an “open mind,” you’ve simply demonstrated how empty your mind really is.  And perhaps your soul, as well. 

~ Lawrence W. Reed

Sheldon Richman on the Capitol breach and the difference between public and private property

Perhaps most annoying of all about the coverage was the barely veiled premise that the Capitol is a temple on sacred ground. Let’s not fall for that nationalist bunk. I find it ironic that those who speak in such tones say they oppose nationalism, which is nothing but a body of state-worshiping dogma, sacraments, and rituals. They just don’t like a particular branch of the church, that’s all. So what’s new? 

Let’s be clear: there is no sacred ground or holy buildings. The posers who are called “representatives” and who occupy such places have no more access to the Will of The People than the high priests had to Yahweh back in the day. 

[...]

So, again, if we have to talk in such terms — and really we don’t — Starbucks and the corner hardware store are more sacred than any government building, which was built with the proceeds from extortion, otherwise known as taxation. This doesn’t justify or excuse what Trump’s infantile horde did on Jan. 6, but it’s a fact nonetheless.

~ Sheldon Richman, "No Sacred Ground," The Libertarian Institute," January 11, 2021

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "No, Trump isn't guilty of incitement"

The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know.  As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink.  In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt.  In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically.  In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement.  One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan. 

Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to “fight much harder.”  Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol: “We’re going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.  Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.  You have to show strength and you have to be strong.” 

In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to “intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear” and to “incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.”  This language is based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which the Supreme Court set the standard for speech that could be prosecuted without violating the First Amendment.  The justices held that a Ku Klux Klan leader’s calls for violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech.  The court found that Clarence Brandenburg’s comments were “mere advocacy” of violence, not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action . . . likely to incite or produce such action.” 

The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it.  He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

~ Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, "No, Trump Isn't Guilty of Incitement," The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2021

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler on why she voted to impeach President Trump

I am not choosing a side — I’m choosing truth.  It’s the only way to defeat fear.

~ Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA), January 13, 2021