It could never be written into the constitution, but it's still there as an essential element of making decisions together.

The concept you're looking for is "good faith". And faith is what it is, you can't have evidence for what went on in the inspector's mind.

Good faith is basically the goodwill be give each other that we're deciding things according to what we say we're deciding things by. If you're judging a figureskating contest, you are supposed to do it based on the desire to promote good technique and artistry. If you do it based on who you think looks good, nobody will ever know, they can only suspect it after you've given full marks to a few good looking people with bad technique.

Once that is undermined in a society, we end up with a mess, because just about every decision can be questioned as a political move, which is what is happening in the US.

Take that appointment of Merrick Garland. How many people now think that it was a good faith decision to not hold a hearing for him? Is it believable that people opposed the hearing for non-partisan reasons? I think it's hard.

This "good faith" issue is written into many contracts, and a lot of rules just collapse without a basis in shared principle. What I see is a kind of moral legalism, where people essentially litigate their positions to greater and greater powers as a means to wield their dominion, and this is the very essence of faithlessness.

Whether it is a constitutional appeal to freedom of speech, or political "ratfucking," by people who hide behind societal penalties for any violence, the spirit of mendacity and sadistic antagonism is the same. That good faith principle is the only thing that enables societies to be governed with consent instead of just ruled over as interchangeable subjects.

When we dispense with principles and their honourable spirit, we dispense with the only meaningful thing separating people from animals.

I don't think anyone seriously questions whether the non-approval of Merrick Garland was done in good faith or not. Rather, the phraseology used is whether it was constitutional. McConnell didn't use a pretext, he flat out acknowledged what he was doing, and that it was constitutionally his prerogative.

But much of government and society runs on precedent and tradition. What mcconnel did was constitutional, but the reasons he gave were not authentic, or he would not have approved Amy Coney Barrett for the same reasons he gave for not approving Merrick Garland. Those reasons matter. I.e. if a cop lets you off with a warning because “you were only going 10 over the speed limit”, and then gives someone else a ticket for going 9 over the limit, yes both people broke the law, but that is likely corrupt behavior to punish or excuse one of those speeders, or to meet a secret quota

If I understand correctly, the precedent actually is to go ahead with a Supreme Court nomination if the President and Senate majority are of the same party, and not if they are of different parties. Barrett and Garland are both following precedent.

Mcconnell’s statement (february 2016) was:

> The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president

On September 26, 2020 Amy Coney Barrett was nominated and confirmed a month later - barely over a week before the election.

Yes, that's what he said. That doesn't make what I said untrue, though...

> The mere accusation of being an infidel is enough to taint the perception of the person in question.

Not that we need more reminders of this fact, but here's another recent one that everyone should read: Alex Morse committed the mortal sin of trying to unseat an incumbent Democrat in Massachusetts. The Democratic party used false accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior to successfully smear him and destroy his campaign. Even after their "investigation" turned up nothing they still continued to attack him: https://theintercept.com/2021/01/18/alex-morse-umass-amherst...

not 100%. There's a jewish law concept of an eruv. without getting into the nitty gritty of it, many places that have them, make use of existing utility poles (with permission of the utility companies that own them). Many municipalities have laws that are really unenforced that things can't be posted to them. Sometimes when building an eruv, they will post a strip to the pole (again, don't have to get into the details as to why, unimportant for this discussion). Cities that want to make life difficult for the people building the eruv try to enforce the law against them.

the city general loses in court

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Bergen_County_...

just because the law defines something, we are also equal in the eyes of the law and if a law is not equally enforced and is viewed as being used by the government as a bludgeon against the practice of protected rights, then the government has a difficult case to defend.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is misinformation -- not "allegedly," it is a straight up lie that was intended to stir up antisemitic hatred. The man in question used his print publication to propagate that pamphlet. That same man spent years using his radio program to promote the falsehood that the Russian Revolution was sponsored by "Jewish bankers" and the conspiracy theory that "Jews" were behind Bolshevism. In response to Kristalnacht he said that the persecution of Jews by the Nazis "followed" the persecution of Christians by the Bolsheviks, as if Kristalnacht was a response to what happened in the USSR. When he was challenged on his antisemitism he declared that he wanted the "Good Jews" on his side and that he was only taking a stand against the persecution of people generally (never mind his comments on Kristalnacht and support for the Nazi Party and the Bund).

So no, this is not an example of out of control censorship or a witch hunt or even a "mere accusation" ruining someone's life, nor was it simply that he was an opponent of Roosevelt (who, like every US president, had many political opponents). This is an example of someone who was fomenting religious and ethnic divisions by spreading the propaganda of one of America's adversaries -- while also being indirectly funded by that adversary.

Fr. Caughlin's anti-Semitism was reprehensible, but given the pervasive atmosphere of anti-Semitism at the time, was it actually the distinguishing feature that caused him to be singled out?

On a historical note, the 'Protocols' was originally intended as racist satire, based on the unlikely premise of a leak from the key plotters in a conspiracy. It was immediately received as if it were genuine.

> the conspiracy theory that "Jews" were behind Bolshevism

10 of the 15 leaders of the Russian-supported socialist revolution in Germany were Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%8...

It would be interesting to compare that to the percentage of the German population that was Jewish at the time.

That's not surprising. Jews have traditionally been overrepresented in intellectual circles in Europe around that time. One of the major reasons for this is the antisemitism of preindustrial times: Jews had a hard time entering guilds, and they didn't own any land, so the only viable career paths for them were as merchants or scholars. Their success in these fields then triggered the next level of antisemitism, the 20th-century and contemporary alleged Jewish World Conspiracy.

As another example of how Jews were overrepresented in intellectual fields, the German science community, which had up to this point been among the leading ones in the world, took a serious blow in the 1930s and 1940s because all the Jewish scientists had to emigrate. It can be argued that Germany never quite recovered from that brain drain.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a historian. However, I'm German myself and have studied my country's history to a certain degree.)

> That's not surprising.

If it's so unsurprising, why does it keep being disparagingly referred to as a conspiracy theory?

> the only viable career paths for them were as merchants or scholars

Does instigating a civil war/revolution/coup fall under trade, or academia?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Father Caughlin was not a plucky underdog speaking truth to power when he downplayed Kristallnacht and blamed the Jews for their own persecution. The "alledged misinformation" was in fact, genuine misinformation. And the vetting process was immediate global condemnation.

I wouldn't necessarily call it "alleged misinformation".

"In the wake of [blaming "Jews for their own persecution and [claiming...] that the Nazis had actually been lenient. Only a few synagogues were burned, he lied, adding: “German citizen Jews were not molested officially in the conduct of their business.”], a New York radio station decided to break with Coughlin. “Your broadcast last Sunday was calculated to incite religious and racial strife in America,” said a letter from WMCA radio. “When this was called to your attention in advance of your broadcast, you agreed to delete those misrepresentations which undeniably had this effect. You did not do so.”"

Coughlin broke an agreement not to "incite religious and racial strife". Emphasis on "broke an agreement".

Perhaps you should be more specific instead of resorting to vague insinuations, which can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings.

> What's the vetting process?

You either don't care and make damn sure that the communication channel has a lot of competition over the public mindshare, or you make it completely formal with democratically created rules with last appeals in the government judiciary.

Both of those are fine. Not perfect, but fine. None is dangerous. The first option is the default, for obvious reasons.

I don't know how it was at the time, but our current situation with social media is neither of those options, and not fine at all. Anyway, any comparison or decision based only on the ruleset is misleading.

From the article:

> Coughlin saw things differently. He blamed Jews for their own persecution and claimed in the sermon that the Nazis had actually been lenient. Only a few synagogues were burned, he lied, adding: “German citizen Jews were not molested officially in the conduct of their business.” And communists, not Jews, were the real targets of the Nazi mobs, according to Coughlin.

Can you clarify, do you suspect this information is not accurate? Or you think it's not sufficient to judge the effect of Coughlin's broadcast and the matter needs to be "pursued further"? (How, what sort of pursuit, what would we be looking to find?) Or something else?

Coughlin wasn't secretive about what he believed, and he was banned from certain stations for exactly what he said on the radio, I think? I'm confused what sort of additional vetting you are suggesting should have happened, by whom. I could respect better an argument that it's worrisome when large corporations can ban people for their political views... but you are arguing that Coughlin's political views were misunderstood? Really? How so?

Or wait, from the first paragraph, that Coughlin wasn't really banned for what he said on the radio, but for... critisizing the local government? With what sort of critisism? You realize it wasn't actually the government that banned him, it was a choice of individual broadcasters not to broadcast him?

Parent commenter's comment intentionally avoids mentioning the comments that lead to the ban. Pretty much all of the people who scream "slippery slope" and cry for Parler will follow a similar pattern. So instead, the argument trends towards concern-trolling about "vetting" and such.

An accusation today can ruin a person, more so than ever before.

> more so than ever before

This is ahistorical. In many societies throughout history, an accusation of heresy was a mortal threat, or worse.

However, unlike today with social media, mass communication, and the internet, one could pick up and move to another city and essentially "start fresh" with their reputation.

Today, there is no hiding - forever - even if you've atoned your mistakes.

> one could pick up and move to another city and essentially "start fresh" with their reputation

From the wikipedia article on exile: "In Roman law, exsilium denoted both voluntary exile and banishment as a capital punishment alternative to death."

When something is an alternative to death, I think it's fair to say that it was not a trivial event. "Just" moving somewhere wasn't easy, historically.

Easy has nothing to do with it. It was possible to move cities/towns/state/country, start fresh and have people judge you by your current actions and things you say... not something you said 10 years ago late one night on twitter after a few beers.

Unless you were dead, which was a distinct possibility throughout most of history for one accused of heresy (political or religious).

> An accusation today can ruin a person, more so than ever before

It probably can, but unfortunately the people usually held up as examples of this generally haven't actually been ruined. I mean, what are some actual examples of people who have been ruined by accusation?

George Zimmerman, for instance. The guy still receives death threats and worse, even though he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

Social Media continues to perpetuate falsehoods about the case, trial and outcome. There is no safe place for Zimmerman in America today... and regardless of what you think of him as an individual, that's a problem.

I'm not sure if he's the best example. He wasn't ruined by accusation—whether or not he killed Trayvon Martin was never in question. The question was if it was justified.