Free Speech in Law, Medicine and Metaphysics By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., M.B.A., Phd. (C)Copyright (2011 C.E.

) By Anthony J. Fejfar There has been some attempt to say that persons, such as those who are labeled mentally ill, can be prevented from publishing on the internet, or otherwise, in the areas of law, medicine, and metaphysics, by coercing such persons with threats of criminal prosecution or illegal involuntary commitments on psychiatric wards. Such immoral, unethical, coercive conduct by fascist prosecutors and psychiatrists is both unconstitutional and constitutes a criminal felony under 18 United States Code, section 242. In the United States Supreme Court case of Shapero vs. Kentucky, 486 U.S. 466 (1968), the United States Supreme Court held that every person, without exception, has an individual, natural right, of Freedom of Speech, which is perpetual and irrevocable. The Court stated that while political speech has the highest protection under the First Amendment, even commercial speech is has absolute protection if it is substantially accurate, and that no action can be taken against an author prior to a full jury trial which adjudicates the issue of the substantial accuracy of the speech. Thus, a prosecutor or a plaintiff has the burden to prove that the speech, whether,

law or medicine, or metaphysics, or otherwise is substantially false. Otherwise, action can be taken at all against the author, and, any attempt to do so is a serious federal crime. Now, from the point of view of epistemology, that is, philosophy of knowledge, we can see that truth exists independent of any knower, and thus, a statement is either true or false, regardless of who is making the statement. Thus, the fact that a particular person or author is labeled mentally ill, is irrelevant to the issue as to whether or not the content of the speech is valid or not. For example, if the issue is whether cyanide in the Ohio River is causing harm to particular persons, the fact that such a condition is, or is not happening, is independent of any knower, and thus the fact that the author may or may not be mentally ill, is irrelevant. Logical Positivism teaches us that reality is best known through facts deriveded through the cognitional process of experience, understanding, and analogical judgment and reflection. And, once the facts are reasonably established, reality is best know through the cognitional process of experience and logical reasoning therefrom. This epistemology is basically authentically subjective or objective and thus produces valid results, independent of any particular knower. Since facts are objectively verifiable, the source of the facts is irrelevant to any reasonable inquiry as to whether or not the fact or true or not. Thus, the United States Supreme Court

in Ashcroft vs. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) held that the publishing or posting of any article or blog or book on the internet is absolutely protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution. Thus, any internet posting or publication cannot be interfered with by a psychiatrist or by psychiatry in general. It is a federal crime to attempt to limit the free speech of any person, even a person labeled mentally ill, by in any way intimidating such a person through the threat of use, or the use, of such illegal psychiatric methods such as involuntary confinement to a psychiatric ward, electroshock or lobotomy type torture. Obviously, every person has an individual, natural right of Freedom of Thought, which precedes and makes possible Freedom of Speech. Thus, the use of the psychiatric label of Thought Disorder, is absolutely unconstitutional since there are no objectively valid criterion for the diagnosis of Thought Disorder, other than the irrational, subjective preferences of the psychiatrist. Moreover, every person has a natural and individual right to engage in his or her own thought processes, even when they involve imaginary thought processes in the imagination.