Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

17 October 2018

PEN AMERICAN CENTER, INC v President of United States

The Intellectually active part of my brain was interested in the above matter. The report was channelled through American-Tamil Diaspora. The complaint has been filed with the United States District Court – in Southern District of New York. The Petition includes the following under paragraph 3 the following purpose:

[3. Plaintiff seeks a specific and narrow—but important—remedy for the President’s unconstitutional actions aimed at suppressing speech.  It seeks the entry of an Order (a) declaring that Defendant Trump’s retaliatory acts violate the First Amendment, and (b) enjoining Defendant Trump from directing any officer, employee, agency, or other agent or instrumentality of the United States government to take any action against any person or entity in retaliation for speech that the President or his Administration do not like]

The first Amendment is reported to state:

[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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.]

Under Facts, the Petitioner includes:

[24. Defendant Trump has repeatedly threatened to use the U.S. Postal Service (“Postal Service”) and its rate structure to retaliate against Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post (also referred to as “the Post”), whose coverage he dislikes.

25. On April 12, 2018, he followed through on his threats by signing an Executive Order directing the Postal Service to review its rates.  This Order, on information and belief, was aimed at Bezos’s company, Amazon, and was motivated by Defendant Trump’s displeasure at the reporting of Bezos’s other company, the Washington Post. 

26. From the beginning of his campaign for President, Defendant Trump has repeatedly attacked the Post for its coverage of him, calling it biased, fictitious, and “a disgrace to journalism.”  In a 2016 interview, he called the Post “a political instrument” that was writing “bad” and “wrong” stories “with no proper information,” and accused its reporters of writing a “false” book about him.  He has routinely called the Washington Post “fake news” and personally attacked its writers. ]

In terms of paragraph 24 the phrase ‘whose coverage he dislikes’ is not a fact. It is an opinion. When the alleged victim/s of this particular action – the ‘Amazon’ and/or  ‘Washington Post’ and/or Mr Jeff Bezos – make such a statement, on the basis of their own feelings expressed by using their cognitive ability – that feeling  becomes admissible as ‘fact’.  Such ‘facts’ have to be belief based and are usually submitted through Affidavits. Other facts that are measurable objectively – independent of the producers - speak for themselves and are therefore admissible as evidence. To express as fact – the likes and dislikes of Mr Trump, is in itself in breach of the First Amendment – which includes as offence - ‘abridging the freedom of speech’. Mr Trump is also a citizen entitled to express his likes and dislikes. Until he does so – it does not become ‘fact’. Paragraph 25 also is likewise inadmissible as presentation of ‘facts’ .  Paragraph 26 is about Mr Trump prior to him becoming President. The individual carries her/his Truth from one position to the next. The rights and wrongs in the new position cannot be measured through the yardstick of her/his old position.

The First Amendment starts with religion – that the Government is prohibited from respecting any particular religion. Respect confirms our sacrifices of benefits to include juniors travelling along a particular pathway. Since juniors would produce less the produce is commonly pooled. The sacrifices by those who produce more but enjoy at equal level as the junior – creates a ‘gap’ which is filled by respect for that senior. If a particular religion is respected by a Government – for example Buddhism in Sri Lanka – then by law, the government is junior to that religion. All  other religions therefore become juniors of such a government and more importantly of that religion ‘respected’ by the government.

Those driven by a particular religion, would have developed beliefs as per that religious pathway. Once we believe – we access Absolute power. But when such is graded – it becomes relative. An individual needs to be ‘free’ to exercise as per her/his Truth. That is a fundamental human right. Feelings are generated by Absolute power that the other person and I are One. If I express it towards a business outcome – then it is not belief based. When Service to the Public is provided  without the feeling that we are one – we need ‘Business Unit’ approach to confirm Separation and Equal status, to maintain Order. If we reverse the order – where People ‘tell’ Government – it damages the Sovereign power of the whole. Preventing such reversal is the function of the Government.