We now live in a society that refuses to accept personal responsibility. If you doubt me, stop and think — really think! Who is most often being punished in our society today: the people who are blatantly breaking the law and flaunting it in our faces, or those who uphold the notion of personal responsibility and who seek to hold others accountable? If you are intellectually honest about this question, you will have to reach the same conclusion I did:

We are punishing those who still embrace personal responsibility while rewarding those who have not only rejected it, they refuse to even acknowledge that individual accountability is a thing.

We see it in the way we let the courts remove any accountability when we malign someone who can be labeled as a ‘public figure.’ Folks, it is a violation of Natural Law to assert that a Natural Right is forfeit simply because you are in the public eye. Honestly, in today’s age of social media fame, this could and probably should apply to anyone and everyone on the Internet expressing an opinion — and silence is the expression of an opinion (do the math on that one yourself).

Our Founders did not exempt the press from the consequences of what it published. This is because our Founders were much wiser and much more civilized than we are today. You see, there is a thing that is still in the common law (but our judges refuse to acknowledge) called ‘fighting words.’ In short, if you say something that a reasonable person would expect to illicit a violent response, it is not protected speech! Nor is it considered ‘assault’ when a person openly insults another person, and the person who was insulted whips the insulter’s rear end. That is called ‘the law of the jungle,’ and our Social Contract does not and was never meant to subvert this law. If a person ignores their duties and responsibilities toward others under the Social Contract (which is what they do when they use fighting words), then that persona cannot turn around and claim the protections of that Social Contract when they get what they deserve. They have violated the Social Contract, so they are no longer protected by it.

NOTE: To hold an insulted person to the contract when they have been attacked by someone who has violated the contract is also a violation of the Social Contract.

Did you notice how everyone immediately jumped to the idea of charging Will Smith with assault? By what authority? Since our courts have ignored the common law rule that allows us to pummel someone who uses fighting words to insult us, the courts have no authority to then hold the insulted person to the terms of the law. When they break the contract that creates the very authority by which they broke it, the courts cede their authority as a court of law. In short, the courts have invalidated themselves, but we don’t care because we refuse to take the responsibility that comes with acknowledging that truth.

Now, it’s true: we could sue the insulter for slander and libel, and we should be allowed to do that to the media. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of what we say. But then, because of the courts’ perversions of our Social Contract, we are doubly victimized when we sue our assailant. This is because we now have to expend time and money to recover something the courts are more likely to refuse to recognize: our damages. The courts like to assert that no damages are owed because we suffered no tangible loss, but they will happily collect damages for themselves from the accused in the form of fines. This is actually an indication of just how much of a mess we have allowed our rulers to make of our system. When the victim can recover no damages, but the courts can collect from the assailant, the system is irrevocably broken and needs to be dissolved. How did things become such a mess? By the perversion of Natural Law. This includes the rejection of holding people responsible for their actions, but that includes our refusal to act against those officials who first refused to uphold the terms of our Social Contract.

If we were to hold people accountable for their actions, the media would be much less of a problem as they would be sued into bankruptcy. Corporations would lose their legal protections, which would result in their destruction. Both would act more responsibly as a result. Government would also be nuderd because it could no longer make false assertions such as, ‘you deserve‘ or ‘you’re a victim,’ then use them to justify government over-reach. If you refuse to work for your own support, you deserve nothing and are a victim of no one and nothing but yourself and your own sloth. If you commit a violent crime and your victim defends themselves, you deserve nothing from your victim. More than this, there would be no attempt to excuse a criminal as being a victim of their past, which would end the practice of filing charges against the criminal’s victim when they defend themselves. Today, because of the refusal to assign accountability where it belongs, our courts would charge the victim who defends themselves and award damages to the person who was committing the crime. It is all lawlessness, and more than the law of Man, it is lawlessness in the eyes of the Creator, under Whose Laws our entire system was based.

Oh, and one more thing. I do not care how immoral Will Smith’s lifestyle is. That does not change what is right and wrong. To excuse lawlessness because the victim lives an immoral lifestyle is a fallacy. It is the fallacy of ‘and you, too,’ or ‘an appeal to hypocrisy’ (different ways of naming the same thing). A fallacy is a violation of the rules of logic, which is a violation of Natural Law. So, please, don’t talk to me about how immorally Smith lives. That has nothing to do with reacting to fighting words.

Now, if you want to debate whether or not the whole event was staged…. Well, now that is a different subject, and I’m all ears (mostly because I am very suspicious that this is exactly what it was: a stunt to gain publicity for a dying event).

ADDENDUM 3-29-2022

This is what I mean about free speech needing to suffer the consequences. I do not think Disney should be silenced. It should be free to say whatever it wishes. However, when it openly and intentionally lies like this:

Disney blatantly lies about Florida bill protecting parents’ rights — and the backlash is swift

Corporate protections should be lost and the CEO, Board and ALL stock holders should be open to personal law suit — and yes, even by the State legislature and governor who passed the Bill. What’s more, the stock holders should be allowed to sue the Board and all management types — personally. They have breached their fiduciary responsibility to their share holders, and they should pay the cost of having done so.

The point is simple: speech should be free from censorship, but not free from the consequences of what is said.