 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:05:35 |
On today’s podcast, David and Sarah open with the puzzling case of Project Veritas and James O'Keefe. Why is a New York appeals court appearing to let stand a prior restraint on the press? They then answer a fascinating reader mail question before wrapping up with an extended discussion of self-defense in the context of an incredibly troubling Texas shooting that was caught on tape.
Show Notes:
-New York Times Co. v. United States
-University of Richmond Law Review: “The Meaning of Life (or Limb)”
-Reason: “Are People Allowed to Use Deadly Force to Defend Property?”
-Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: “Widow releases video of Chad Read's fatal shooting in South Lubbock”
I think David, especially, but also Sarah are either oblivious to or do not feel one of the most obvious variables that change people's perception of who should receive the benefit of the doubt - the conscious and deliberate abandoning of the law abiding to the mob. For much of my life I've seen David Dinkins in NYC abandon the Jews of Crown Heights to a three day pogrom, I watched a painful documentary on how Koreatown in LA was abandoned for several days to looters during the Rodney King riots, and the last two years we have had the consensus philosophy of Democrat mayors and governors that destruction of property is fair expression. The majority of Americans believe, whatever the legal hair-splitting, that if a deliberate mob is coming to destroy your home or livelihood AND you have been explicitly abandoned by the legally constituted authorities, you should have a Second Amendment right to defend yourself.
I loved David and Sarah's temper tantrum regarding prior restraint. As they said multiple times, several courts have upheld the order so we can expect there is indeed important details that are not in the public at this time.
The most glaring fact that they didn't mention once during their podcast was that (i) the Times and Veritas are engaged in a very public and extensive Defamation lawsuit, (ii) the Times was literally on sight when the FBI raid occurred and (iii) the publication occurred within hours. So- there's kind of that to indicate that maybe certain facts unknown exist to justify the prior restraint.