No. Explains Robert Barnes: "The United States Supreme Court long ago recognized that any attempt to punish speech “outside the court room which comment upon a pending case” would “weigh heavily” toward unconstitutionality. Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 260 (1941). Only speech that presented a “clear and present danger” to the ability of the courts to function could even be considered for proscription or punishment. Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 262 (1941). Indeed: “what finally emerges from the clear and present danger cases is a working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished.” Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941)."
What is being released right now is not transparency.
It is controlled disclosure.
Fragments.
Selective timing.
Curated narratives.
Carefully engineered confusion.
Enough to distract.
Former DNI General Michael Flynn
“Our problem as Americans is we actually hate history. What we love is nostalgia.’
-- Regie Gibson
“Here’s an uncomfortable truth about the Epstein accusations: We only find them morally reprehensible because of Christianity. Before the spread of Christianity, ‘civilized’ Greek and Roman elites openly flaunted underage s*x slaves. This was normal. Emperor Hadrian built an entire city in honor of his favorite boy… If you undercut the moral foundations of Christianity from the West, culture reverts back to pagan norms.”
–Paul Anleitner