Monkey See Monkey Do

As usual something in the news has struck me again...this time as simply being odd.  Ok also stupid and additionally; entirely revealing.  You can read the full article HERE for all proper context.

So Rep. James Clyburn (not a monkey) feels that it is somehow related to the MLK "Dream" speech to talk about the media being less than diligent in their abilities or willingness to report facts.  I think at least with that summary most people agree...the media has a hard time at being unbiased in its reporting and is more often than not glib.

However...in speaking about Internet based media he claims that they often misquote people or simply quote people out of context.  As if that is something new...and then he blames those "internet media types" for the corporate media (mainstream) not doing their own due diligence and simply running with an unverified story.  So as he gets more and more off-track his thought train de-rails straight into godwin territory.

The quote in context (Hat Tip The Hill.com):

“The people of Germany believed Hitler’s foolishness that led to the Holocaust. They believed that stuff,” Clyburn said. “People will tend to believe what they hear through the media.”

Clyburn singled out “extreme right-wing” bloggers in particular for criticism. He accused such bloggers of forcing Shirley Sherrod to resign from the Department of Agriculture after misrepresenting statements she made to make her appear racially biased. He also said they had libeled the progressive group ACORN, leading to the group’s disbandment. 

"Most of these people are not media people; they are bloggers, and they are bloggers for the extreme right wing," he said. 

“People tend to act now and ask questions later,” Clyburn added. 

He also said that President Obama was vulnerable to misrepresentation due to the media abdicating its responsibilities.

“The media has not been discerning enough, in my opinion, to say to people, ‘This ain’t news. This is foolishness.”

So not only are the "New Media" (Internet media) disciples of Hitler who are intentionally misleading the masses and blaming the jews for everything, but they are somehow removing your ability to think critically and realize what is or is not foolish.  Clyburn obviously feels that there is a growing need for government to do something about these dastardly internet types beyond his control.  Already he has characterized bloggers as "not media people."  So this is related to the discussion that our self-styled betters have been having about the "need" re: desire, to license media people federally so that they can carve out special protections for them and not for you and me.  This was probably talked about for a long time but it was catalyzed by Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden and those who actually distributed the information Wikileaks (Julian Assange et. al. and The Guardian/ Glenn Greenwald...and now by extension his partner who was recently detained for 9 hours under a very broad and likely fraudulent use of an anti-terrorism statute).

So to really get at Clyburn's point.  You're a monkey and we (the government) need to do more to make sure that you get only one government issued and verified take on the days news.  That way you will do what we want.  This is all about control and not what is best for us as individuals.  This is about creating more layers of bureaucracy and it is folly disguised as wisdom at best and at worst it is a strike against the first amendment... disguised as promoting truth.

Andrea Mitchell is an ignorant slut

I know it sounds provocative but the title is simple a re purposing of a saturday night live quote by Dan Akroyd.

Of course the slut part is simply there for being outrageous but the ignorant part is true.  In some recent comments about fiscal conservatives (where she is simply projecting) she makes some assumptions that should not be made.

Her argument falls this way:  Fiscal conservatives should not want to spend money on border security because they don't want to spend money on things she wants money spent on.  Therefore their argument is invalid.  Her other argument is that the "statist-wing" of the republican party (re: McCain and friends) are heroic for their pursuit of the selling out of the United States, rather further selling out, to the corporate interests that want to keep depreciating wages.

Her asinine comments went right by the host (David Gregory) without even a request for clarification as it was mostly a baseless attack on people she disagrees with.  I don't know what to say about Mr. Gregory except that he is clearly not interested in anything resembling the truth.

Most so-called fiscal conservatives read and understand the constitution differently from Mr. Gregory.  They feel that the government ought only be spending money on their constitutionally specified roles.  Border Security would be one of those...as would the armed forces and various other activities, but they do not tend to like programs like social security, food-stamp/EBT programs.

That is what really gets Ms. Mitchell's ire up.  So instead of actually addressing the issue which is a difference of opinion on what government should be doing/ how it should be in our daily lives; she attacks her opponents based on a false premise that she herself...sets up.  That was possibly one of the largest straw-man attacks in recent days.  I wish I could hand her some sort of award for being a cunt.

Inside The Insiders - A Meta-Game

For those of you that know me, you know I have played a MMO called EVE Online for the last nine years or so, though I have taken breaks.  That isn't what this post is about, but it is relevant nonetheless.  In EVE Online there is a sub-set of players that are almost purely social and use that part of the game to enrich themselves in in-game terms.

They are many times genial, friendly and seemingly open, but in reality a pack of glib sociopath assholes.  They are the meta-game players.  They climb a social ladder in an organization just high enough to get some form of privileged access so that they can through betrayal or subversion obtain more influence and power or get more money.  We all know someone like this in real life and that is what this article is about.

In reaction to this article I felt it necessary to point out that another way of describing insider trading, political intelligence gathering or any other sort of related activity is meta-gaming.  It covers a whole host of situations if you just frame it all as a game.  Stock picking is a game just as much as EVE Online is and is vastly more lucrative.  There is nothing honest about what goes on in Wall St.  company fundamentals have little to do with stock price.  Rather is is how people feel about the stock.  If you meet your earnings projections...that doesn't mean you did a good job, rather people feel you are adequate.  If you beat projections you are stellar and if you fail to meet them you are trashed and no one cares that you still made a profit.  You are being gamed.  If some person gains access to the information ahead of time and uses it to leverage one position or another or several at the same time ( a gambit ) they are not just hedging but finding a way to profit based on non-public information.

This is illegal in the United States.  Now WHO do you think has the most inside of insiders information?  Why Those who write the rules that everyone will have to follow.  That would be the United States Congress and the executive branch that enforces those laws...who also has input into how those laws are 'shaped'.  They seem distinctly pyramid shaped to me.

And all one has to do is look at what former congressmen are doing now.

Tom Daschle and Trent Lott

That is just one example.  Those two always appeared to be on opposite sides but in reality were simply conspiring against their respective constituents for their own enrichment.  One man, William Binney, described this process in the just the NSA alone as a feeding cycle between private and public where a department would get more funding so that a dept head could later leave government and get a job at the firm he had given contracts to.  And the cycle of always getting a bigger budget would perpetuate itself.  This happens across all sectors of the government and when it happens in purely private industries people usually end up going to jail because it is corruption, a violation of their oaths of office and might as well be a form of mafia.  But those in power act like it is just a part of doing business.  So if that conspiracy is true...just follow the money.

Darryl Issa is Sir Bedevere

When Congressman (R) Darryl Issa (CA) is dealing with the IRS scandal I can't help but imagine the conflict with Lois Lerner going something like the witch scene in Monty Python: Quest for the Holy Grail film.  This woman has smartly invoked her 5th amendment right to not answer the question on the grounds that she may, without any intention to, implicate or incriminate herself.

Of course this isn't an actual judicial proceeding but she has good reason.
Those reasons are:  President Obama meeting with liberal blogger Ezra Klein and one of the founders of talking points media.  It is clear that these men are surrogates for the administration since sending out conventional operatives (Dan Pfeiffer and Jay Carney) failed to move the football down the field politically speaking.

Of course the Republicans are none too interested in solving this problem either.  They are focusing on Lois Lerner (who exposed this entire thing) rather than the people actually responsible for the bad and possibly illegal conduct.  so while many of these indignant and righteous men point fingers and scold whoever is in front of them...they do nothing as lawmakers to solve the problem.

They could: defund the IRS tomorrow if they so wished.

They could: abolish the IRS and institute a new flat/fair tax scheme and/or national sales tax.

They could pass legislation creating a special council/investigator who has the powers to investigate and subpoena individuals, documents and whatever else is needed to create an actual case.  They could do this with Benghazi...defund the CIA/DIA/NRO/NSA until answers are gotten.  That is...if congress were serious about making things better.

They may get a special prosecutor for the IRS.  They won't defund it, they won't rewrite the tax code, they won't upset the balance that the status quo is.  The IRS is their weapon.  It is a blunt instrument to keep us all in line and to separate us from one another by our incomes.  Envy is a powerful weapon.  Lois Lerner is made of wood and she shall indeed float...that is until she drowns.

You say what?

Today on CBS Face the Nation, noted liberal journolisto and show host Bob Schieffer spent a good amount of time grilling White House advisor (re: propaganda artist) Dan Pfeiffer.  Most of the time the interview was really going against Mr. Pfeiffer in terms of host attitude.  However the final exchange is notable.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But what I'm saying to you is-- to you is that was just PR, that was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn't know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn't the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if you knew nothing say we don't know yet? Why didn't White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this is no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn't the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?

DAN PFEIFFER: Well, let-- let's start with Susan Rice. She went out-- Ambassador Rice went out that day, and represented the administration and spoke to what happened with the best information we had, that everyone in the administration had, was what she looked at. And that was the consensus of the intelligence community. What we do is we want to go out and speak to the problems as they happened. And what's important here is that when problems happen is that the President takes responsibility for them and tries to fix them. And that's what-- that's what we're talking about in Benghazi because you're right, that is an absolute tragedy what happened. And the question isn't who edited what talking points. That-- that's largely irrelevant. What is relevant is what are we going to do to make sure that never happens again which is why President is calling on Congress to pass legislation to beef up embassy security around the world and protect our diplomats who, by their very-- the definition of their jobs are existing environment of risks. 

It takes only until the second sentence to lie.  Susan Rice did not present the best information they had at that point, though she did represent the administration admirably.  She fell on that sword good and hard.  That was supposed to end it and shield the President.  Nothing she said was part of the consensus of the intelligence community.  So far Dan has lied at least twice baldly on air.  The President took zero responsibility as the blame game was played between agencies for the last six months...lie number three.  (don't pay attention to who edited the talking points)...Is this real or am I in Oz?

Then he tells the host to pay attention to the new legislation they want to pass...as if the law was the problem in the first place and not terrible decision making.  Oh and by the way he manages to point out that these ambassadors put themselves at risk...y'know its kinda his fault he died...he knew what he was signing up for and probably deserved it.

Now the interview ends likely as a matter of time constraint...but in a sort of odd way considering how contentious it was.  Mind you Bob Schieffer was apologizing the entire time for possibly seeming argumentative.  Well he SHOULD be confrontational.  But he was letting Dan know that he wanted to be on his side...but that he couldn't see a rationale for it...and he was asking for one to be given to him...something he can stomach.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I want to thank you for coming this morning. I know this is not an easy job. I mean, do you kind of feel like someone who drew the black bean here? You're the one that has to go out and try to explain?

DAN PFEIFFER: Oh, no. It's-- it's a privilege to be here with you, Bob.

So all is well that ends well eh?

Bob asked hard questions, but fails to call the guest on his absolute lies, his gas-lighting psychological warfare on the audience.  He admits that Rice's talking points were not accurate...but then says it was the best information they had.  Spinning 180 within a matter of seconds must be his specialty.  Pretty amazing that he's considered a credible person.

The Case Against The IRS

The IRS was created in 1913 under President Woodrow Wilson as the enforcement wing of the US Treasury Department in order to facilitate the Income Tax legislation that was passed following the ratification of the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Part of the PR campaign that went with the passage of the 16th amendment was that it would never target the average citizen and was only to be applicable to the wealthiest among us.  The top rate in 1913 was 7% (those earning half a million dollars or more).  Later, rates would rise dramatically up to 67% by 1917 and have fluctuated wildly ever since.  However, regardless of the rates applied the Us Government has rarely ever actually captured revenue exceeding 18% of GDP.  In fact, according to the World Bank, The US government only captured 10% of GDP on average in the last few years.  That is despite all tax rates being quite a bit higher than 10% currently.

The current scandal involving the targeting of individuals and groups based on political ideology is not new and has gone on since the IRS was founded.  FDR was famous for using it as a weapon against political adversaries including those who formerly had supported him like Father Coughlin ( a raging catholic liberal ). Is it illegal?  Perhaps, but perhaps not.  The IRS targeting Al Capone is what put him away and many criminals get ensnared by the vigilance of the agents at the IRS.  Of course this mkes me think about renaming them TED (Tax Enforcement Directorate).  The name has a certain authoritarian ring to it and at least more accurately describes what the organization is designed to do.

If the what the IRS did was in-fact illegal, then not only should agents and leadership lose their jobs and go to jail (as you or I would for say...assault, tortious interference, perhaps use anti-stalking laws or other statutes to put them away).

However the real scandal so far is that no one is seeing the obvious solution to the problem.  if the IRS is being used as a weapon and no political head of state can be trusted to run it (here's looking at you all Presidents since and including Wilson).  Then we have to take that weapon away.  That is abolish the IRS.  Start a new subdivision of the Dept. of the Treasury and call it whatever you want...but not IRS.  Throw out the US tax code in its entirety where it would apply to individuals (businesses are a different issue and far more complicated).

Repeal the 16th amendment on the grounds that it is too broad and open for abuse.  Amend the constitution to allow for a flat (not progressive) income tax rate to be set by the US House by a simple majority (51%) and only allow the senate to confirm or reject said rate without changing the rate itself as all of this must originate in the House.

As a result of the new flat tax, there would be no deductions, allowances, or loopholes.  There would also be no requirement to report income via a filing mechanism.  Legislation can be passed requiring the employer to electronically withhold the amount and it be transmitted via EFT (electronic funds transfer) to the US Treasury upon each pay period.  In your check you would see only that tax (Social Security/medicare/medicaid would be taken out before taxes in my scheme to reduce the tax hit).

The amount of time and money saved would be staggering.  And the best part is that there would be no ability to socially engineer society with taxes, to use them punitively or as a form of information gathering by political entities on their enemies.

When it comes to businesses one would have to allow for them to deduct all of their expenses against revenue and only tax profit.  All auditing assets would be focused on the business community rather than on families and individuals.  Business rates would also be flat whether a business is a C Corp, S Corp, Pass-Through Entity (sole proprietorship/DBA/Partnership/LLC/LLP etc.).  It would be a separately set rate from the individual income tax, but done through the same electronic system wherein at a given timer period the taxes would be paid based upon receipts.  Most businesses file quarterly reports and that would seem a prudent method.

Of course these measures would also eliminate the distinction of the capital gains tax...which would be folded under the individual income tax...which means that the rate would likely rise by 2-5% from its current level of 15%.  Tax exempt trusts would only be considered tax exempt for the current generation, that is with the current generation's passing away it would be taxed going further.  So let us take the Kennedy's as an example (could just as easily use the Bush's), They have a tax free trust that allows them to live off the interest only like with municipal bonds or treasury certificates.  When the eldest member of the family passes away, the next eldest who would receive the monies for the family would not receive it in a tax free manner, but rather pay an income tax like everyone else.

The time for making distinctions between citizens has come and gone.  We must stand united against being divided by those who seek power.  This is a tough complicated issue and it requires hard critical thinking by the US Congress because it is up to them to fund the operations of the US Government.  So they must come up with a rate that is neither too high nor too low and also delivers to them the revenue necessary to adequately fund the governments constitutional activities.

That may mean however that the government's raw size for the second time in our entire history would decrease..and that means a lot of federal employees out of work.  Many of them military.  So Congress should see it as its duty to set aside funding for job training/retraining and even job placement centers for these people as we transition.  It should be seen as our duty to do this for the military especially.  The Federal government should not be seen as a jobs program writ large but as a mechanism for governance and so much of what is done falls outside of that or is well overspent.  Simply examine all of the recent government loans to "green" industries that have failed, or the past frauds of the military credit cards, the continuing fraud in medicare/caid/SSI/Disability and the coming fraud that will consume the Affordable Care Act...written largely by the insurance companies themselves (yes that is why your premiums are rising massively).

Our representatives have ceased to believe in the implied fiduciary duty they have to the tax payers and constituents in the districts that gave them the job.  There is no sense of honor left except among a few and even those few do not have enough bravery to push for an audacious change like this.  This post barely scrapes what would have to be addressed, never mind the political interests from all sides that like having their own niche carved out.  No more weaponization of taxation.

Boston - Consequences: An Analysis

The twin bombings at the Boston Marathon are a tragic event and of course it brings out all of the politicians to capitalize on the event for their own ends.

Barney Frank: "In this terrible situation, let's be very grateful that we had a well-funded, functioning government. It is very fashionable in America, and has been for some time to criticize government, belittle public employees, talk about their pensions, talk about what people think ... of [their] health care. Here we saw government in two ways perform very well. ... I never was as a member of Congress one of the cheerleaders for less government, lower taxes. No tax cut would have helped us deal with this or will help us recover. This is very expensive."

David Axlerod:  And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this. It was tax day. Is it someone who was pro-[unintelligible]? You just don't know. And so, I think, his attitude is let's not put any inference into this. Let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible.

Well that certainly isn't suspicious rhetoric at all.  One is bloviating on why taxes are good and you should pay more and the other is implying that beause it was tax day that it *may* have been pro-tax cut/libertarians/right-wing militia types that would have done this.  He stops  himself but not before the suggestion is in people's minds by inference.

For now that takes care of the politics.  Time for the reality.

The FBI had a "drill" going on at the start and finish lines with bomb sniffing dogs and they were announcing to the public that it was a drill.  Y'know to keep people from panicking.  And then of course bombs ACTUALLY (not a drill) go off.  This makes the facade of a drill drop.  They had to have had a tip on solid information as to there being bombs, but no information as to exact location of said bombs.  So They decided to try and have their cake and eat it too.  They tried to keep the event going and still be heroes.

The simple explanation is that the FBI screwed up and should have evacuated the start and finish areas and cordoned it off so they could find the weapons easier than in the throngs of the crowd.  But instead of prioritizing civilian lives they prioritized the bombs and the person planting said bombs. The marathon goers were nothing but bait and if there is anything to learn about law enforcement...you're cattle, bait so they can catch the criminal.  Casualties are expected and simply the cost of doing business so to speak.

One would theorize that if they evacuated the area they might have scared off the person planting the weapons and the event would have simply happened later and they would have been even more off guard.  Like at the Japanese Cherry Blossom Festival or some other event.  From the intelligence analysis side this was an opportunity to get more intelligence and track things back more.  From a public service side this was a failure of leadership/wrongful prioritization of short-term intelligence gain over public safety.

The FBI has a duty to come clean on this entire matter to clear itself with the public, but as one can see from above that the spin machine is already out and in full force to deflect attention from scrutiny and misdirect attention towards other entities to either obfuscate/deflect blame or frame-up an unrelated organization due to political unpopularity.

This is all based on a lack of malice by our own government and not everyone is as charitable as I am.  The FBI was simply incompetent with zero leadership.  

Good luck Boston.

MASS STABBING BAN ALL KNIVES

HERE

• Clearly easy access to knives is to blame, and knives over a certain length (capable of piercing the skin) should be banned.  
• Knife makers need to be more responsible and not design these "assault" knives.  
• The government also needs to register all knife owners and all knives need to be registered in a national database. 
• Also you need a license to own a knife capable of cutting flesh.  All schools and government building will now be knife free zones (yes even the plastic ones....they can be sharpened on table edges and made into shivs)
• Ahh hell ban all pointy things.  

Reasonable people agree that this is the answer to the problem.

You don't say!

So I am up late as usual and I caught the tail end of an episode of the Rachel (I'm a lesbian can't you tell) Maddow show.  She happened to be doing a piece on the growing limitations on abortions and abortion access in several of the states.

The piece goes on to talk about the difficulties faced by the employees and the legal and physical challenges (threats) they face simply for exercising their "consitutional rights".

That's funny to me because it is the same crowd that wants to restrict explicitly stated constitutional rights or remove them altogether when it comes to firearms in the hands of private law-abiding citizens.  Abortion isn't a right per se but like other medical procedures it is your right to privately choose to undergo the procedure.

Freedom! but not for you because I disagree with you!

Deranged

The current debate about gun control is quite heated and I for one feel that it is getting out of hand.  The supreme law of the land currently guarantees you (a citizen of the USA) the right to keep and bear arms.  This right can be revoked through due process as it is many times for violent offenders.  In-fact any right can be revoked through the use of due process in our court system.  Many felons can no longer vote.  It does strike me as odd that politicians would want to give the right to vote to criminals, but don't want the average citizen who is law abiding to have a weapon for self/state/national defense.

The 2nd amendment is there to give functionality to form an infantry based army in what was a decentralized nation.  There were no satellite communications, nor were there telephone/telegraph lines at the founding.   The states were considered more important than Washington D.C. by most people as that was the government closest to them and was most involved in their daily lives.  Between the Civil War and WWI (The Great War) there were many changes sociologically.  We began to see each other as part of one nation...and not as a Virginian, or a man who is from Massachusetts.  We still had some regional divides, but by and large the Civil war period followed by the first world war and the advent of telegraph and telephone/radio communications began to bring us closer together.

The United States had always had a standing army of some kind, but not on such a massive scale as we have it today.  It was never designed to have a massive standing army, rather we were supposed to have citizen soldiers who would be called up (drafted), or their militia units would be incorporated into the larger army structure for a war.  WWI was the last real period of demilitarization on the part of the USA.  Some of this is for "practical" reasons of being able to respond quickly, and there are also more dubious reasons.  Mostly our military power was used to maintain the global status quo and for the United States to supplant the United Kingdom as the dominant "empire" in the world.  Much like Rome with its growing military during its imperial period, it will be unsustainable for us as out nation was designed as a Republic.

The increased rapidity of events means that more centralization became necessary if only for functionality at the bureaucratic level.  As for militias, the militias were essentially folded into the structure of the National Guard in 1903 (just prior to WWI).  Most of those units are still based in their home states as a militia unit would be.  They are however unified in a command structure nationally.  They receive Federal funding and are considered federal employees (not state).  So having said all of this that would mean that any citizen who owns a firearm (at least within a certain age group) could be expected to be called up to serve for a period of years and trained.  The selective service program which all USA males are lawfully obligated at the age of 18 to participate in is an example of how this is actually executed.  The US. Govt draws up a database of eligible people and presses them into service.  The Second Amendment indicates that this is true.  The states also have primary claim on the natioanl guard and those units are the LAST to be deployed in any martial action.  Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard.  The reasons are two-fold.  1) Economically you don't wanna rip away every able bodied person from his or her job. 2) Socially it is disruptive.

So, back to why you have the right to own a military class weapon (SEE ABOVE).  It was expected that a citizen would be able to afford a basic infantry weapon of his or her era.  So in addition to being able to defend one's self and property, one could also defray some of the hardware cost that the militia would incur. Any organized armed force would have heavy weapons (like cannons, artillery, mortars etc.) that are impractical for individual use, maintenance and storage.  A rifle/musket/semi-auto or full auto rifle would be considered by many at least practical for storage and maintenance even if he or she does not enjoy using it.  It would have also been expected for fathers to train their sons in the proper respect, use and maintenance for the weapon.  To lend some credence to this there was a great amount of talk about virtue being the core of the new republic and that without many citizens possessing such an attribute that the republic would be more or less doomed.

The idea of whether or not a person "needs" an assault rifle or semi auto pistol or whatever is beyond the scope of the governments authority to interpret what a citizen may feel he or she requires.  It is a citizen's absolute RIGHT to keep and bear (possess and lawfully use) arms.  This would seemingly not be restricted to firearms, but include other types of weaponry as well as arms is a generic term for any and all weapons including swords, maces, clubs, pepper spray, knives and other types that I won't bother naming.  It would be up to the state to regulate how they chose to monitor possession of those items but outright bans have happened in some cases for things like brass knuckles and the like.  It would be a fun legal challenge to have it overturned.

Need of a weapon is irrelevant to the language of the constitution, whereas your rights are what are spoken about.  Whenever someone (politician or pundit/think-tank representative) speaks about "need" or "fairness" the person speaking about it is being disingenuous.  That speaker is injecting his or her own opinion as to what he or she would have and projecting it onto each and every citizen.  This is the authoritarian take on the situation.  Many of these people send their children to private schools which have private armed security forces or have body guards hired to protect them...but god forbid each and every citizen be able to defend themselves.  *I'm looking at you Mr. Dershowitz**Peter Jennings**President Obama**Glenn Beck* etc.  You can name any number of people who find it fine to have armed body guards, but you, the lowly citizen,  must wait for the police to find your dead body.

Enough is enough.  If you do not want a weapon...then simply do not buy one.  If you want to own one you have the responsibility to get the proper training in use, maintenance and licensing (where required by law).  When a person commits a crime, the weapon is evidence but it is not charged with the crime because it is simply a tool with no conscience and it does not similarly remove one's rights.  Example: The Right to free speech is not lost or given up by anyone even though a person may engage in libelous or defamatory activities.  We don't talk about restricting speech further, the party responsible is dealt with through the legal system and it is resolved.  We should be so mature about all violations of our rights not just the ones that we agree with on some gut level.