25A016 The Right to Speak by Jim Davies, 4/22/2025

- or not to speak, as the case may be. Whose is it?

Even occasional ZGB readers must have been referred to this Edition, which lays out the undeniable fact that each of us owns ourselves, including our thoughts and physical bodies. That therefore includes our minds, brains, lungs, tongues, vocal chords and whatever else contributes to the act of speaking. So, each of us does have the right in question. You do.

You may have realized this long ago, but recently it came to my notice that in a government court that right is, or can be, denied. If the judge requires you to speak, he will hammer you until you do. Fine you, put you in a cage (for what he calls "contempt of court") until you submit; theoretically, an infinite prison sentence.

Yes, a couple of exceptions are graciously allowed. You could take the Fifth, if what's to be said might incriminate you. If you're a priest you don't have to snitch on a confessor. If you're a medic, likewise for your patient. Absent such exceptions, the government judge claims to own your tongue. He doesn't. He's a liar. I think that's contemptible, and so that the judge should be in a cage.

It came to my notice while watching a documentary on the Simpson trials. In 1995 he murdered (in my opinion) his ex-wife and her boyfriend, and was put on trial but acquitted by the jury. My further opinion is that the jury was entirely right, for there was ample "reasonable doubt"; namely that the LAPD had planted some of the evidence against him and therefore possibly all of it. The jury was well aware that the PD habitually planted evidence to secure convictions, especially when the accused had a black skin, as did O J Simpson. That was the "criminal" trial.

Fred Goldman, father of the boyfriend, was outraged and filed a "wrongful death" suit against OJ in a government "civil" court. That jury was from an upscale part of LA where everyone thought that police were honest. Now, since in that kind of court there is no question of a criminal sentence (so they reason) testimony cannot be with-held; that is, OJ was put on the stand and required to answer questions. His right to silence was denied.

OJ was an outstanding footballer, but an unimpressive witness. So he lost.

Another case: that of the State of Ohio vs. Ryan Widmer. In 2008 his wife Sarah drowned in the bath. She had a well known history of falling asleep at odd times - but Ryan was found guilty of murdering her, and part of the evidence that told against him were some of the words he used in his 911 call, at the worst and most stressful moment of his life. He was given no "Miranda Warning" by the 911 operator, his permission to play the tape in court was not sought, and he did not otherwise choose to testify at trial. He was forced to "speak", against his will, then was handed 15 years to life.

In the coming Zero Government Society there will be a justice industry, rather than a monopoly system, and courts will compete on their reputation for fairness - all in the context of a society re-educated to understand that everyone is his or her self-owner, as in para 2 above. So there will be no question of compelling anyone either to stay silent or to speak; and if that is not convenient for the court, that will be just too bad. Perhaps their verdicts will sometimes be wrong. That also happens today. But rights are absolute, and the right to decide what to say, if anything, is one of them.

Denial of the right to speak happens not just in government courts; the whole "Cancel Culture" does it, and is the product of the political and social Left. At first it came in the colleges, as reminders to "be nice" - in essence, don't despise follow students for being different. Be "politically correct." The idea had some merit, and was treated with a little humor. Then it became a harder rule, and was no longer amusing. Then when on Social Media large minorities contradicted what the ruling clique authorized, the companies had their arms twisted to edit such heterodoxy off the platforms. Free speech was denied, Amendment One notwithstanding.

But by now, refusal to debate has entered the culture. Still predominantly a Leftist disease, sickeningly often if you champion a different view, they try to silence you (by Denial of Service hacks on the Net for example) but even at a personal level, they don't reply, or attempt to rebut! They just zip their lips, and try to zip yours. Their crucial human attribute of reason has been gravely damaged.

Re-activation of that attribute is vital. Eight generations of government schooling have deliberately suppressed it (the purpose is not to teach kids how to think, but what to think) in multiple ways - even by shifting the syllabus so that geometry is taught as late as age 15 or 16. I was lucky; I got dosed with that and algebra too, when 9; so at that tender age I was trained to reason; given this, prove that. Basic, and vital; and currently, missing.