Brewington argues he was merely stating his opinion that, in constraining his right to see his children, Judge Humphrey was essentially committing child abuse. ... Without the element of knowing falsity, Brewington claims, the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad because it can punish reasonable criticism of government officials. ... Such conduct is of no value to public discourse and is, in fact, harmful to the administration of justice when the victim is a judicial officer.Yes, his criticism has great value because it is the only way to hold these corrupt officials accountable. This is a case of judges trying to shelter other judges from legitimate criticism.
When you hear of political prisoners in other countries, remember that we have them in the USA also.
The legal support for him is for his free speech rights and against his imprisonment, but the injustice goes far beyond that. His kids were taken away without due cause.
Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court is hearing the relatively trivial complaints of the LGBTQIA lobby. A California gay couple complains that California gives them all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but does not call it marriage. A NY lesbian complains that she has to pay an inheritance tax on a multi-million dollar estate left by her friend. That's all. If these folks really favored equality, then they would say that Dan Brewington has a equal right to his kids. But I have never heard anyone from the LGBTQIA lobby advocate equality for parents. Their leaders are dominated by lesbians who are opposed to fathers rights.
Post a Comment