Crime
Vera Liddell had been a lunch lady in a Chicago school for more than a decade. Over the last few years, she began ordering extra food and diverting it from the school. Recently, an auditor discovered the discrepancy and Vera was arrested. It was determined that she had stolen 1.5 million dollars’ worth of food from the school—mostly chicken wings. A couple of weeks ago, Vera pled guilty and was sentenced to nine years in prison for her chicken wing thievery. You can read more about it here.
Also recently, I wrote about a guy in Chicago who has been arrested 75 times since 2015, has been arrested 12 times this year already, and committed two crimes in one day while on pre-trial release for four different armed robbery cases.
You may be able to get away with robbery and battery in Chicago, but don’t even think about stealing chicken wings.
Free speech
Germany restricts firearms more heavily than does the United States. Where U.S. citizens have Second Amendment protections, under German law, a citizen must undergo an extensive permitting process to carry a gun. To obtain a permit, a German must be eighteen years old, demonstrate expert knowledge of firearms, demonstrate a necessity for possessing a firearm, and demonstrate trustworthiness. Recently, a German court ruled that being a member of the Alternative for Germany (AFD) political party, the second largest political party in the country, makes a person per se untrustworthy for purposes of the firearms permitting process. If you are a member of the AFD, according to the court, you cannot possess a firearm.
I know next to nothing about Germany’s political parties. The AFD is described online variously as anything from a far-right extremist group to a center-right populist party. It is unusual, though, that membership in an organization alone, without other evidence, would allow for disparate treatment under the law. In fact, a different German appellate court previously found that German citizens have a right under their constitution to organize politically, and that membership in a party alone is insufficient to prevent a German citizen from possessing a firearm. Perhaps a higher German court will resolve the issue, soon. Stay tuned.
More free speech
Continuing the theme of comparative politics, the United Kingdom does not have an equivalent to America’s First Amendment right to free speech. You can go to jail in the UK for posting mean tweets. In the UK, “a person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he…uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour…thereby causing another person harassment, alarm or distress.” (Link) This is awfully broad language. It has been used to prosecute some cases that would never be contemplated in the U.S. For instance, in 2017, a 19-year old girl was prosecuted for re-posting some offensive rap lyrics on Instagram. (Link)
Recent race riots in the UK have spawned renewed enthusiasm for using the country’s criminal speech laws. That enthusiasm has even been directed outside the UK. Last week, London’s Metropolitan Police Chief said, “We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you are in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.” (Link)
Ten days ago or so, the European Union’s Digital Commissioner, Thierry Breton, learned of Elon Musk’s plans to interview Donald Trump on an X livestream. Commissioner Breton sent a letter to Elon Musk attempting to dissuade him from hosting the interview. The letter began by reminding Musk of the UK’s speech laws. The letter then said, “we are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political or societal events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.” (Link)
On Monday last week, a reporter from The Washington Post, Cleve Wootson, Jr., saw the Breton letter and got excited about the possibilities in the U.S. He asked White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, this question: “Elon Musk is slated to interview Donald Trump tonight on X…I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue, it’s an American issue. What role does the White House or the president have? Any sort of stopping that, or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that?” (Link)
No, Cleve. None. The White House has no role in “sort of stopping that” or “sort of intervening in that.” This is the U.S., not the U.K. Please re-read (or read, as the case may be) the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
As always, thank you Judex readers! Forward this to your friends and ask them to subscribe, please.