Opinions Inc

   Isn’t this discussion about Cap and Trade, misdirected? If you believe that Cap and Trade is just a substitute for Zero Pollution legislation, why would we allow anyone to pollute; allow anyone to profit from ephemeral “pollution licenses for non-polluting by accident of plant design or type.”   
   Worse, allow polluters to buy “pollution licenses” in a market set up by government? The goals and paths to reaching them should be:
   1. No pollution allowed from any new commercial or manufacturing activity. This means that any new manufacturing, extraction of any commercial or institutional activity would only get a license when demonstrating that they will treat all emissions to Zero pollution outcomes, and remanufacture, transform or design processes to utilize waste streams so that waste is 100% recycled or, if directed to landfills, a charge equivalent to the cost of processing and storage is enacted.
   2. Existing manufacturing, power production, extraction or any other commercial activity must develop a ten year (seven-year?) plan for closing the polluting facility, or redesigning and rebuilding facilities or operations to Zero pollution output. Replacement with new technology like coal gasification if we want coal utilization, Tax incentives could be provided to assist in the transition and development process.
   The Cap and Trade premise is specious; that pollution is “allowed” or grandfathered, or in any way permitted. Manufacturing, commercial activity, and other activities that generate pollution should be “Zero” output targets; with plant designs that emit zero process pollution.
   Humans emit CO(2), what about licensing them? Ridiculous, right? Same for farm and recreational animals, right? Dogs, Cats, Cattle, Horses.
   So, population control by means of a Cap and Trade for each birth would be helpful, right? Well, maybe not.
   I am one who believes that lack of population planning and population growth is driving many of the world’s problems, yet certain countries and areas are mismanaged to the detriment of encouraging healthy populations, while others are not operating “closed loop” societies, absorbing more resources than they generate.  The point is giving license to existing polluters is wrong; forcing Zero pollution through tax incentives, plant and process replacement would be better use of tax policy, and lead to better outcomes, quicker. (How about a $1.50-2.00 per-gallon-tax on gasoline, and transportation equivalents?
   Same for other energy resources to quickly encourage conservation and replacement). We could save four to six million barrels of oil a day just though “Cloud Commuting.”   
   There are plenty of technologically and culturally compatible alternatives to Cap and Trade; CAP just seems to be the politically desirable approach right now, and gives the government (surprise) control of a LOT more money, a dubious result in any case.

First Amendment to the Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Pretty simple, right?

Yet hundreds of court judgements, similar amounts of Supreme Court reviews and Opinion (why is it an Opinion, not a Final Order?) affirming, modifying, declaring, opining, and other descriptive terms point towards the continuing need for affirmation of Free Speech as a bedrock component of Democracy, at least as practiced here in the U.S.

Now comes the recent case involving the woman who masqueraded as a boy, terrorizing a young girl, deliberately intending to harm the girl through SPEECH, with, some folks claim, direct responsibility for the young girl’s suicide. The woman was found guilty, and may face jail time; some feel that she should get life for what she did, and caused. The way the woman was found out was through inspection of the girl’s computer and Chat activity, and tracking down the woman.

 In Maryland, a lawsuit for damages is pending, waiting for a decision on whether an Anonymous web site poster may be identified for purposes of legal action for damages, originating from claimed defamation. Other cases either resolved in determining identification, or still pending, attempt to argue that Anonymous speech is inherent in the right of Free Speech, constitutionally protected.

I don’t think so.

The Right of Free Speech, in my opinion, carries the concurrent right and responsibility to “claim your speech” as well.

Why? Because the Founding Fathers contemplated the absolute right to petition the government, in whatever forum, at the time town center speeches and postings, “cry outs” in meetings, articles and letters in  newspapers, and literally every way possible to let a voice be heard, and protected in the process, even encouraged. The Founding Fathers occasioned the founding of United States as a result of Free Speech activities, considering that our founding was precipitate upon the ability to create speech in the form of a government expressing self-determination, with, for instance, the Vote being a form of speech.

In the Maryland case, anonymous Internet posters claimed that plaintiff’s business, an eating establishment, was dirty, unsanitary, polluted the area, and more. The web host, a newspaper publisher, defends the poster’s anonymity as a Free Speech right. Plaintiff claims that without knowing the Anonymous poster, truth, motive, intent are open. Plaintiff’s harm may be substantial; poster’s claims untruthful, defamation may have occurred.

While the court decision is Pending, my hope is that the poster’s identity will be revealed. I feel that Anonymous posting offers the opportunity for free speech to be used in “evil pursuit,” at least as far as potential harm to people is concerned. The American system of justice must protect Speech of all types, be it whistle blower evidencing government, corporate or Citizen misdeed., or Citizens expressing Opinion of politicians, institution, or commerce.

The need for and right to Anonymity stops at the point where untruth, defamation, or other damage occurs, giving civil right to those harmed to pursue civil damages, as prescribed by law. Whether in actuality untruth is claimed, harm is caused, monetary damages are justified, al all to resolved in a Civil Court, and rightly so.

“Juries can most easily determine the fairness of a thing, and the rightful outcome.”

In essence, we must take responsibility for our speech, and be protected in the Right to present speech. Our responsibility extends to accepting the consequences for our actions, when necessary.

“There is little Truth in perception or in subjectivity; Truth reveals itself in the examination of the facts.”

“If you must speak, declare publicly, be known for your portrayal, be confident in your righteousness. Let those who disagree debate publicly as well, with vigor and similar righteousness. Let the public decide the right of it all.”

The Constitution provides for the protection of Speech, and provides for the responsibility of Government to vigorously, energetically, and constantly be alert for the need to protect Speech, both it’s Right, and Responsibilities.

It’s one thing to opine that a politician reminds you of a Groundhog, only sticking his head up to see what the weather is like; it’s another to suggest Anonymously that he collects bribes for constructing the burrow. In the first instance satirical humor is offered, in the second, a claim of criminal conduct requires the identification of the poster if the politician claims damages, AND if the poster is the only Proof of the claim.

Similarly, it’s one thing to Anonymously claim that a MySpace Friend really isn’t, didlles your boys and girls, has HIV, or others claims which are false, and defamatory. The Accused must be able to confront the Accuser, and our system of justice demands an avenue of redress; I suggest must even assist in the pursuit of redress, such responsibility inherent in providing a Guaranteed right of Free Speech.
The Constitution provides for the right of the Accused to confront their Accuser. The government, at the instance of prosecution, even discovery, acquires the absolute responsibility to protect the accuser.

In this country let no man be afraid to stake his claim to opportunity, nor be afraid of declaring the same; let no auspice of government interfere, but protect equally.

My gun, my safety.