Abridging the freedom of speech....

The Supreme Court has declined to review the SHAC 7 case. In other words, people were imprisoned for what they said and the highest court has agreed by default that this is ok. This is the same court that just recently said laws against protests at funerals are "unconstitutional" because they abridge the freedom of speech.

Uh, speech ok in one instance, not ok in another instance. What's the deal? Well, it is fairly apparent that the winds that have blown in one direction for 500 plus years are continuing to gust in the same direction. Essentially that if money is involved, if profit is involved...that trumps any hypothetical individual "freedoms".

This country started out as a criminal foray (for profit and gain) against the original human inhabitants (Native Americans) and convenient and self-serving fictions aside...has continued on that track since then and these "decisions" simply serve to affirm that.

Waving a meaningless affirmation of "free speech" such as that associated with the funeral protests is merely providing a passing salute (acceptable, because it doesn't involve money) to the general populace's delusion of "freedom".  The SHAC 7 and Rod Coronado cases are the important ones, because they do involve some sort of opposition to "profit".

What is really deplorable is that when a jury is involved (both the SHAC 7 and Coronado cases were jury trials), folks that theoretically know better (i.e., regular joe blow citizens) have the opportunity to derail the profit train and uphold their right to free speech. They didn't (the jury was hung in Coronado's case) in either case. They went along with the injustices and agreed that money is more important than any such silliness as "free speech". If the citizens don't want "free speech"....?

I will be curious to see if connections are made between these contradicting events...free speech ok if no money involved, not ok if money might be lost.