SEDITION: Warning Pentagon staff that following the orders of the Secretary of War could lead to investigation and prosecution is effectively calling on them to disobey or ignore the Secretary's orders.

While crowds streamed into the Hong Kong Book Fair on July 15, elsewhere in the city, national security police and customs officers raided two independent bookshops, seizing novels and arresting five people for alleged sedition. It is a bleak contrast. While the government made a public show of celebrating books, it was simultaneously punishing booksellers for what they placed on their shelves. Hong Kong officials have also refused to specify which books are illegal. This uncertainty does much of the censoring work for them—fear sparked by one arrest prompts other shops to preemptively remove unbanned novels. What disappears is not only a business, but the freedom to compare conflicting accounts of the past and encounter ideas that the government rejects, reaching independent conclusions. With every missing book, the horizon of what Hongkongers can know, question, and imagine grows narrower.

🚨 NOW: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna says the FBI agent who admitted to running a "shadow government" likely committed SEDITION by withholding crucial foreign interference in elections info from President Trump LUNA: "Is this not sedition?" The Deep State knows who they are AND THEY BRAG ABOUT IT! Bring on the prosecutions! Complete bombshell that must result in consequences.

Are you aware that China paid CBS to facilitate the overthrow of the United States government on November 3, 2020? @C__Herridge: “CBS executives deliberately buried the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 to overthrow the U.S. government and then ordered her [Catherine Herridge] to wait until after the 2022 midterms to help the Democratic Party.” In other words, not only did Christopher Wray have conclusive forensic evidence, but so did CBS. By the way, the 51 intelligence officials should be tried for the crime of sedition.

Ep. 281: What’s the First Amendment’s original meaning? w/ Jud Campbell and Stephen Solomon The First Amendment is only 45 words long. But more than 200 years and thousands of court decisions later, we’re still arguing over a basic question: what do those words mean — and what did they mean to the early Americans who adopted them? To look through history and debate what originalism can — and can’t — tell us about the First Amendment’s free speech clause, @TheFIREorg's @NicoPerrino is joined by @StanfordLaw's Jud Campbell and @nyuniversity's Stephen Solomon. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:20 Original meaning and modern First Amendment doctrine 09:12 Would the founders recognize our Constitution today? 16:00 The Alien and Sedition Acts 20:21 How the founding generation practiced free speech 24:35 Can we define “originalism”? 32:05 Representative government and the promise of liberty 45:00 The First Amendment’s absolute language 51:36 New York Times v. Sullivan 58:01 Amending the First Amendment 01:04:30 Outro