Abortion, infallibility and the 'safer course'

Are you infallible?

Are you infallible in your belief that the child in the mother’s womb who is about to be killed is not a human being?

As I watch and listen to the protests, and to the assuredness of the pro-abortion press, my thoughts recur to Blaise Pascal’s “Wager.”

Pascal was a French philosopher and theologian, as well as a famous mathematician and physicist. Today, he is perhaps best known for “Pascal’s Wager.” Pascal argues that all human beings wager, by the way they live their lives, that God exists, or doesn’t exist.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live his life as though God exists. If you do, you will incur, at worst, a finite loss. You will deprive yourself only of one or more of the fruits of the deadly sins: illicit sex, ill-gotten gain, or worldly power.

If, on the other hand, God does exist, you stand to receive the joys of eternal life if you have led a life pleasing to God, or eternal damnation if you have lived a life that displeases.

So, as you take your pro-abortion stand, would you not be wise to ask yourselves the following questions?

Is there a God?

If so, does he reward good and punish evil? Forbid us to kill? Command us to “Love one another?” Tell us that human beings are created in his image and likeness?

If so, at what point does God think that the embryo-fetus-child, is a human being? If at conception, what is your liability if you kill it? If at 15 weeks, what is your liability if you kill it?

If God exists, what if God believes that killing the embryo-fetus-child is murder, even if you don’t?

I have always known that I am not infallible. While I do not know the precise instant when God considers the embryo-fetus-child to be fully human, I choose to wager that there is a God. For that reason, and because I believe he has said, “Thou shall not kill,” and commanded that we shall “Love one another,” I believe abortion to be a moral wrong. In that, I think I am not unlike Abe Lincoln who said that he believed “slavery to be a moral wrong.”

Am I infallible on the matter? No. Am I willing to risk an eternity in Hell for taking the innocent life of an unborn child, except in the gravest of circumstances? No.

I am, however, morally certain that the embryo-fetus-child is fully a human being the moment it can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb — even if medical care is needed.

But I have also written before of the importance of act consistently with one’s own well-formed conscience. Given, however, what appear to be consistent divine and secular proscriptions against killing the innocent over the history of mankind, coupled with Christ’s command to love one another, the taking innocent life, but for the gravest of reasons, seems utterly inconsistent with acting consistently with a well-formed conscience. It you love your neighbor, can you kill him? Popes, theologians and catechists say, “Rarely, and only for the gravest of reasons.”

In the matter of taking human life, medieval popes, theologians and philosophers consistently counseled, as Pascal suggests, “take the safer course.”

In fire-arms safety training, you are taught that while you may truly believe you are killing in “self-defense,” your jury may think "murder.” When you abort a child believing you are justified, Pascal warns that you may be second-guessed by God.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 29, 2022

Free Speech in America. Whatever the Biden Administration Allows

 On April 27, 2022, President Biden’s Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alejandro Mayorkas, told the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee that he had created a new “Disinformation Governance Board” (“DGB”) within DHS “focused on the spread of disinformation in minority communities ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.”

Joe Biden has decided he needs his own “Ministry of Truth,” if he is to have any hope in a particular “minority community” — the Hispanic community, where his approval rating has plummeted to 36%.

The idea is not new. Adolf Hitler had Joseph Goebbels as his “Minister of Propaganda.” Stalin had his Ministry of Truth. Putin has his today.

Biden’s original “Minister of Disinformation,” Press Secretary Jenn Psaki, has endorsed Mayorkas' rape of our First Amendment: "It sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation/misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities.”


Under our U.S. Constitution, Congress, presidents and judges have only those powers specifically granted to them by the Constitution. So, where does the Constitution say President Biden can establish “Disinformation Governance Board? A “Ministry of Truth?”

It doesn’t. And just to make doubly sure that it doesn’t, the First Amendment provides, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..." 

That amendment has been interpreted by our Supreme Court as applying to Congress, the executive and the judiciary — even though it mentions only “Congress.” And at least since an 1857 Supreme Court decision, no creature of Congress or department of government has any power to do anything that Congress itself has no power to do.

 Even left-leaning Politico has expressed outrage at the Biden/Myorkas lurch toward censorship.

“Even President Barack Obama shortchanged the truth. Of 600 Obama statements PolitiFact checked during his administration, a quarter of them fell into the “red zone” of being false, mostly false, or “pants on fire” false.

“Not so long ago, 50 intelligence officials … assured the nation that the Hunter Biden laptop story bore “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” How did that work out?

“The idea that Covid could have come from a Chinese lab was similarly dismissed as disinformation; now it’s considered a legitimate possibility by the Biden administration.

“Meanwhile, we have documented proof (of Hunter Biden’s shenanigans) from The Washington Post that even Joe Biden can handle ….”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) condemnation is scathing.

"The (DGB) amounts to a 'Department of Propaganda' from a government that appears fearful of its own citizens' free thoughts. …"

“This is the kind of thing that you see in dictatorships — this ‘Ministry of Truth,’ “They're afraid of the people. They're afraid that we might actually think for ourselves.”

Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) has been no kinder.

“The Biden Administration has not proven itself to be a credible arbiter of ‘disinformation.’

“Instead, it has taken steps to silence information that is unflattering to this Administration under the guise of ‘disinformation.’

"For example, unnamed intelligence officials, the media, and social media platforms engaged in a coordinated effort to censor stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop and his questionable financial dealings under the false label of (Russian) ‘disinformation.’”

So, who exactly do the Democrats believe will engage in this “spread of disinformation in ‘minority communities’ ahead of the 2022 midterm elections?” Putin? Chairman Xi? Trump? Dastardly Republicans?

And why now? Desperation given Mr. Biden’s polling numbers? Fear of losing the House and Senate? Fear that Elon Musk means what he says about restoring free speech on Twitter?

That’s what Professor Johathan Turley believes:

“For years, the First Amendment distinction (government vs. non-government censorship) has been the focus of liberals who discovered a way to circumvent constitutional bans on censorship, by using companies like Twitter and Facebook.

Biden, Mayorkas and Psaki know that the “political” speech they are targeting, can’t be suppressed or cancelled, consistently with the First Amendment. But, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Over the life of our Republic, the Supreme Court has held that certain, narrowly-defined classes of speech are beyond the protection of First Amendment: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, speech integral to criminal conduct, and speech that creates a clear and present danger.

Speech that hurts feeling (even if labeled "hate speech), misinformation, disinformation, erroneous speech and speech expressing disfavored views are all forms of protected speech (unless they are obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, etc). And opinions and/or beliefs never rise to the level of defamation or fraud.

In a free country, if you do not like my political opinions (or religious beliefs), your remedy is to refute them in the "marketplace of ideas." To rationally demonstrate by argument to your audience that your opinions are better than mine.

The totalitarian remedy is to shout down, "cancel,” and deny citizens the right to express political or religious opinions.

Freedom of speech, press and religion presuppose tolerance for the “objectionable” beliefs and opinions of others.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 22, 2022

Who Determines "Free Speech?"

Elon Musk has now bought control of Twitter. If Musk means what he says about free speech, the Biden administration will have lost a crucially important ally/henchman in its efforts to shut down any speech (political, medical and religious) that it disingenuously labels, “disinformation.”


There is a lawsuit afoot. Former President Trump has sued Twitter, alleging that he, and others, have been banished from Twitter. Trump alleges that Twitter is willfully participating “in joint activity with federal actors.”


Whether you like Donald Trump, or hate him, you had better pray to God that he wins. If he loses, your First Amendment right of “free speech” will be reduced to your “right to say what the government permits you to say.” The First Amendment will be reduced to ink on worthless paper.

To see the path on which Biden’s administration is taking us, consider this.


Host Mika Brzezinski interviewing Surgeon General Vivek Murthy on MSNBC, asked: "What do you think are the best ways to push back on misinformation about COVID that continue to be aggressively pushed, whether it be on Joe Rogan's podcast or all over Facebook?"


Had I been Murthy, I would have said, "We need to utilize the same media platforms, and carefully address what we believe to be misinformation, and explain to the American people why what we call misinformation is truly misinformation."


For any American who cares at all about our First Amendment "right of free speech," the remedy for real "misinformation" is "counter-speech;" not prior restraint, censorship, gagging.


Murthy knows that. Nevertheless, he reached for the traditional remedies of the Hitler/Stalin-types: prior restraint, censorship, gagging. Murthy wants Facebook, and Twitter, to do the government's dirty work for him. Look at Murthy's answer: “This not just about what the government can do. This is about companies ... recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation."


In a free country who gets to decide whether information is “disinformation?” The government? Giant social media platforms doing the government’s bidding?


Or do the citizens of a free country have the right to hear all sides of the issue, and then have the right to make their own decision as to which information is “accurate?”


Has anybody anywhere barred Murthy from appearing on CNN, FOX, NBC, Facebook, or Twitter to provide what he believes to be "accurate counter- information?" To rebut Rogan’s alleged "misinformation?"


Is the surgeon general, the sole arbiter of what is "accurate information?"


So, how does a "company like Facebook use the power it has "to limit the spread of so-called “misinformation?” Ask Donald Trump.


The gist of Trump’s lawsuit alleges: Twitter has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, and willful participation in joint activity with federal actors.


Mr. Trump's suit is a class-action suit. It seeks to vindicate not only his rights, but the rights of others similarly situated.


President Biden and his henchmen, the likes of Vivik Murthy, know damn well that no branch of the U.S. government, has any right to impose prior restraint or censorship on the political or medical speech of any American, without first demonstrating to a court that a "clear and present danger” exists, which cannot be averted except by use of a prior restraint.


If the U.S. government, with experts like Dr. Fauci, can't win a Covid argument against the Joe Rogans of the world, then heaven help us in conflicts with China and Russia.


If, given Elon Musk, the Biden administration can no longer count on Twitter, et al, to do its bidding to shut down claimed “disinformation,” watch for the government try to do its own dirty work using the likes of Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas, and his Department of Homeland Security, with its new “Disinformation Governance Board,” run by its fruit-cake tzar, Nina Jancowicz.


In January of 1933 Adolph Hitler became the German Chancellor. On October 4, 1933, he decreed a new Reich Press Law. William L. Shirer describes its operation: "Section 14 of the Press Law ordered editors to 'keep out of the newspapers anything, which in any manner, is misleading to the public.'"

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 8, 2022

Running for Political Office in Illinois — a Cesspool of Lies and Character Assassination

Illinois politics has become a cesspool of lies. I posit that when politicians resort to lies, half-truths, innuendos and smear campaigns, elections become meaningless.

When voters are inundated with lies in campaign ads, reprinted in newspapers, and strewn across the radio and television, what chance does any voter have — Republican or Democrat — to vote for the best candidate?

Here’s an example: campaign ads are now airing for and against Richard Irvin, who has entered the Republican primary, as a Republican candidate for Governor.

Here is an excerpt from one of Irvin’s recent TV ads. [The bracketed materials, are print overlays across the audio/video portions of the ad].

“I went to Law School to become a “hands-on” prosecutor. Going on police raids. [“Prosecutor” “Back the Blue”] Taking back one street corner or apartment complex at a time. [Prosecutor” Took back the streets. Putting gang-bangers, drug dealers, and wife beaters [“Prosecutor” “Over 1000 Convictions”] in prison. I’ve seen it up close. “Defund the Police” is dumb, dangerous, and costs lives. And I believe that all lives matter. [“All lives matter”]. Every family should be safe. Running our second largest city, crime has come down since our police budget has gone up. I hired more cops each year.”

Now here’s the picture of the same candidate painted by the Democratic Governors Association.

“Richard Irvin’s real record on crime?

“For 15 years Irvin has been a defense lawyer profiting by defending some of the most violent and heinous criminals: Domestic abusers, and sexual assault. A kidnapper who molested a child. Reckless homicide. Even accused child pornographers.

“Irvin’s been getting rich by putting violent criminals back on the street.

“Tell Richard Irvin to stop pretending to be tough on crime, and start supporting policies that keep people safe.”

When I first saw Irvin’s campaign ad, I was immediately skeptical of Irvin’s claim that he had “Over 1000 convictions.” I suspected his “1000 convictions” were, in the main, pleas of guilty in minor traffic cases.

I was an aggressive young prosecutor for about 28 months, here in Rock Island County.

When I left office, I always said I had about 30 convictions in jury cases. I did not list among my “convictions," bench trial convictions, or convictions pursuant to pleas of guilty. And certainly not attending “motion hearings.”


On his Linkedin page, Irvin states: 

“Secured over 1000 criminal convictions. — Tried over 300 bench trials and motions, and 10 jury trials.

“10 jury trials” suggests 10 jury convictions. So, how many of the “300 bench trials and motions,” were mere “motion hearings?” Nobody has ever been convicted at a “motion hearing.”

How many of the “300” were serious cases, where the judge found the defendant “guilty” of a felony, or at least a Class A Misdemeanor?

But assume Irvin obtained convictions in 300 “bench trials” and 10 in jury trials. By my count, he is still 690 convictions short of 1000.

Is he enhancing his record by including among “his convictions,” cases where the defendant pled “guilty?” How many of those pleas were in speeding cases, or in cases involving other petty offenses? Indeed, of his “bench trial convictions,” how many were for “speeding?” Petty offenses?

In my opinion, no honest lawyer would ever include “motion hearings” when touting his record of “convictions.” No reasonable voter would ever imagine that an honest candidate touting his “tough on crime record,” would embellish his record of “convictions” by including pleas of guilty in minor cases

And if Irvin embellished his record as a prosecutor in this regard, are his other claims of “taking back streets” and “putting gang-bangers, drug dealers, and wife beaters in prison,” anywhere near the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Or is he grossly exaggerating his bona fides as a prosecutor?

But then, is the attack-ad against Irvin paid for by the Democratic Governors Association any less dishonest?

Is there really something wrong with an attorney acting as counsel for a defendant? Defending someone accused of kidnapping and molesting a child? Representing defendants accused of “heinous” crimes? Winning “not guilty” verdicts?

Is every person charged with a crime guilty? Presumed guilty?

And just how “rich” did Irvin get defending criminals? “Putting them back on the street?”


In my 26 years on the bench, I can’t recall even one local attorney “getting rich” defending alleged criminals. Most attorneys stayed clear of the criminal practice. All too often, [unless they were court-appointed], they got stiffed.

In my opinion, both of these ads are shameful, and intended to mislead the voters.


If a jury hears nothing but lies, half-truths, innuendos and character assassinations, reaching the correct verdict becomes a crap-shoot.


When politicians and their allies do battle in the cesspool of lies, half-truths, innuendos and character assassinations, elections become Russian roulette.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 1, 2022

What is a woman? What is our Constitution?

Do our U.S. Constitution and its amendments, especially the first 10 amendments that we call our "Bill of Rights," really protect our rights and our freedoms?

If you said, "Yes," you are terribly naive.

Our Constitution, as amended, is nothing more than parchment with words written on it. It can no more protect your rights and liberties than can a sheet of toilet paper.

The only thing that guarantees your rights and your liberties, is a commitment by all Americans to govern and live according to the words and meaning of our Constitution. Without that commitment and without consensus on that matter, your rights and liberties, and those of your children, will vanish like the last winter snows on a warm spring day.

Our Constitution was a great experiment. It was the first written Constitution.

Our founders realized it had to be "faithfully executed," if their liberties and those of their descendants were to be secure. To that end, the president, all U.S. senators and representatives, all governors, all members of the several state legislatures, all federal and state judges, before embarking upon their duties of office, take an oath to "support the Constitution" as the "Supreme law of the land."

But what does it mean to construe the Constitution and its amendments "according to its words and their meaning?"

Our Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument [the founders] have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted..."

And the court has warned, "Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes."

Again, our Constitution today is nothing more than a piece of paper. It protects our liberties only to the extent that our president, Congress and court act to implement its words and meaning consistently with the intent of our founding fathers.

Consider the danger of a judge or judges ignoring the founders' intent, and re-defining the words of the Constitution to give them a "more enlightened meaning."

The words "due process" had a very specific meaning for the men who wrote our 5th Amendment. Once the intent of the "founders" is discarded, then are not all alternative "more enlightened" intents equally valid?

A simple illustration: President Joe Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court (She was confirmed on Thursday.)

At her confirmation hearing Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked the judge to "define woman." The judge answered, "I am not a biologist."

Was Blackburn's question a "gotcha question," or was she trying to get at something important? Does it matter how a judge defines the word, "woman?"

There is an NCAA swimmer, born a male, who is now dominating in women's swimming events. Should that swimmer be allowed to participate in NCAA women's sporting events? Is that swimmer now a "woman," because he now believes he is a "woman?" Because he has undergone gender confirmation surgery? For some other reason?

The answer to this question is critically important to every female participating in high school, college and professional sports. It is an issue that will ultimately be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the court defines "woman' as it would have been defined by our "founding fathers," today's women and their daughters win — especially those participating in school and professional sports.

If the judges decide that a former biological male can be considered a female, women will be displaced on their sports teams by males who now consider themselves females — biologically-born males who weren't good enough to win against male competition.

The University of Connecticut has a terrific women's basketball team. What chance do you think they would have against the Duke men's team, if to win a championship, the Duke men suddenly declared themselves women and were allowed to participate in the women's tournament?

Title IX was enacted to prohibit discrimination based on sex. In trying to insure women equality of opportunities with men, did Congress intend to include as women, men who had changed their sex? Did Congress intend to allow bigger, stronger former-male athletes, in the name of "equality," to dominate women's sports?

How the court defines "woman" is critically important. Once "original intent" is eschewed as the pole star for constitutional or statutory construction, all alternate intents become equally valid. Then, rather than the Constitution being the rule of law as envisioned by the founders, we substitute an ever-shifting rule of law reflecting "popular opinion or passion of the day." Toilet paper.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 9, 2022

Faith without works is dead. A call for Quad City Churches to help the people of Ukraine

I went to Mass Sunday morning, and once again, during the Prayers of the Faithful, we were called upon to pray for the “suffering people of Ukraine.”

But to borrow a passage from the Epistle of St. James, “what good does it do to tell your neighbor, “Have a nice day,” if he is starving and naked? What good did praying do the Jewish people in Hitler’s concentration camps? Millions of them were murdered. If there was divine intervention, few noticed it.

In Luke 10: 25-37, Christ tells the story of the Good Samaritan and of a traveler (rather understood to be Jewish) who is stripped of clothing, beaten, and left for dead by the side the road. A priest and a Levite pass by the man and do nothing. Finally, he is rescued and cared for by a Samaritan — a “foreigner.” Christ tells the story to explicate “who our “neighbor” is.”

And In Matthew 25: 31-46, Christ explains what our duties are to the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick and to strangers, — and the consequence for doing nothing when we see them.

Sadly, talk is cheap. Again, in the words of St. James, “Faith without works is dead!”

So, what exactly is my parish doing to provide food, clothing and medical care to help the

Ukrainian people survive the mass murders being visited upon them by Vladimir Putin — the second-coming of Adolf Hitler and/or Joseph Stalin? What are the other churches of the Quad Cities doing?

Who among the clergy of the Quad Cities is organizing, coordinating and running a multi-faith, large-scale Quad Cities-wide relief and rescue operation to provide food, shelter, clothing and medicine to the Ukrainian people being slaughtered by Putin’s Russian military? To the refugees? To the neighboring countries trying to care for the refugees fleeing Putin’s artillery shells, bombs and cruise missiles?

I don’t suggest this will be easy. Any moneys donated would have to be put in the hands of a trustworthy charitable organization (or organizations) — one that knows what needs to be done, and has the capacity to ensure that all donated aid gets to where it is meant to go. A non-political organization which will make sure that our donations are not siphoned off by predators.

I do not believe that most churches have substantial sums “parked” in their bank accounts, but those that do should dig deep. Or are “bricks and mortar projects” more important that coming to the aid of our innocent Ukrainian neighbors in distress?

And for those churches that are poor themselves, they still can seek meaningful donations from their congregations.

I propose an immediate, widely-publicized, massive inter-faith campaign led all the churches of the Quad Cities who subscribe to the commandment that we must “Love our neighbor as ourself” to raise and provide large amounts of humanitarian aid the Ukrainian people who are losing everything they have to Putin’s Russian barbarism and terror.

I will donate. Will you?

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 28, 2022

Will The Reich Press Law of 1933 Replace our First Amendment?

I can easily imagine a nation in which there is only one newspaper. Where only opinions favored by the political party in power get printed. Where a single newspaper is allowed to exist, and is the voice of the state. Where all other ideas, which in any manner, are "misleading to the public," or otherwise unacceptable to the state, are buried.

Impossible in America?

In January of 1933 Adolph Hitler became the German Chancellor. On October 4, 1933, he decreed a new Reich Press Law. William L. Shirer describes its operation.

"Section 14 of the Press Law ordered editors to 'keep out of the newspapers anything, which in any manner, is misleading to the public, mixes selfish aims with community aims, tends to weaken the strength of the German Reich or ... the common will of the German people, ... or offends the honor and dignity of German.' "

Shirer notes that had there been a comparable law before Hitler came to power, the law "would have led to the suppression of every Nazi editor and publication in the country. It now led to the ousting of those journals and journalists who were not Nazi, and declined bo become so."

In case you haven't noticed, small independent American newspapers run by small businesses or individuals are all but gone. Major newspapers, like the Chicago Tribune, are all owned by giant media companies. Today, even very large newspaper organization, like Lee Enterprises (77 markets in 26 states), are endanger of being devoured by even larger newspaper chains.


But today print newspapers are endangered of going the way of the dinosaurs. Many adult Americans today are getting their news instead from the enormous social media platforms.

According to Pew, 31% of U.S. adults say they get news regularly on Facebook. 22% say they regularly get news on YouTube. 13% say the regularly get their news on Twitter. 11% on Instagram.

But besides getting their news on Facebook and Twitter, many American have used these platforms to put their political, religious, and medical ideas and opinions before the American people.

And more and more of those Americans are finding their opinions (and even their statements of facts) banned from Facebook, Google and Twitter, in some cases for life, because they "mislead the public," "because the are contrary to settled science," or because some fascist at Twitter or Facebook who disagrees with the opinions labels them "hate speech," etc. Among the banned are former President Trump, Republican Senators Rand Paul and Ron Johnson. The given reasons why they have been banned may differ, but they all come down to Facebook and Twitter claims that "they are
misleading the public."

In America, a newspaper or a TV station cannot be sued for not printing or not broadcasting the statements of another American. Our Bill of Rights, guaranteeing Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, only protects our rights against Governmental interference. Twitter and Facebook are not "governments" or entities of government. They are private businesses.

But President Trump in July of 2021 sued Twitter for his being banned for life by Twitter. In his Complaint, he alleges:

"Twitter has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, and willful participation in joint activity with federal actors. Defendant Twitter’s status thus rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor, and as such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment right to free speech in the censorship decisions it makes.

The gist of Mr. Trump's allegation is that Twitter is no longer acting as just a mere private business. Twitter, he claims, is instead "willfully participating in joint activity with federal actor." Mr. Trump further spells out his claim, saying, 

"Twitter’s status thus rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor, and as such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment's guaranty of free speech and freedom from censorship in the decisions it makes."

Note also Mr. Trump's claim that Twitter has been coerced into its actions by "threatened legislative actions." The complaint names names.

Among his other arguments, Mr. Trump alleges that Twitter bases its censorship upon a misuse of §230, which was intended only to protect minors from the transmission of obscene materials on the Internet, is being misused to authorize censorship and prior restraint of Constitutionally protected speech.

Mr. Trump's complaint runs 34 pages and some 143 allegation, and cannot be discussed in detail here. But two allegations are of particular interest.

"Dorsey and Twitter acted to censor other medical opinions that did not uphold that narrative of Dr. Fauci and the CDC, which took on both a political and medical nature ....

"Congress cannot lawfully induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what [Congress] is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

If the former President loses this law suit, the First Amendment is a dead letter, and its guaranty of free speech illusory. If only those who express opinions approved by the Government can use Twitter and Facebook, §14 of the Reich Press Law will replace our 1st Amendment.