The following was a letter submitted by an anonymous Pirate supporter using the pseudonym “Forward Thoughts”, sharing critiques of the gap between the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and how they are often undermined in practice. This article is apart of the project “Message in a Bottle”, allowing supporters of the US Pirate Party to submit editorial articles to the United States Pirate Party website.

Not many people are educated on this matter, but there’s a difference between rights and freedoms. Rights are legal protection of entitlements in regards to ethical, social, or legal principles bestowed to a populace. Freedoms are the capability to believe, act, or think without inordinate deprivation focusing on freewill and autonomy.

Let’s talk about our good old rights. Made in your township, county, state, and in the case of our constitutional amends Washington D.C. Constitutional amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, are an example of rights you have.

Back in 1789 the US Constitution was conjured up to succeed the precursor to the Bill of Rights, which was called the Articles of Confederation. Difference between the US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation was the US Constitution was made for all states to abide by within the Union, emphasising on a sturdy centralized government while the Articles of Confederation was to confer autonomy to the states with an emphasis of there being amicable relations between the states.

Here in the USA we have constitutional amendments that are supposed to protect us against a tyrannical government. These rights include, but are not limited to, freedom of speech, fair trial, privacy, and right to bear arms (firearms).

Before America gained its independence from the British crown while under its colonial rule, our founding fathers included a statement in the Declaration of Independence that said “we hold these truths to be self-evident”.

Here’s something to think about: if these truths are self-evident, why do we need it written on a piece of paper by lawmakers in an ever ideological-shifting Congress subject to interpretation by Judges who again, shift from one ideology to another when they get impeached, pass away while in office, or retire?

Right to a fair and impartial trial is granted under the 6th amendment. Moreover, it entitles you the right to a speedy and jury trial.

Just because you have the right to a fair trial doesn’t mean you have the liberty to a fair trial. In other words, your rights are enshrined into law on a piece of paper in theory but not in practice.

For instance, 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case Frazier v. Cupp said the police can lie to you in an interrogation. That’s right, deception is not grounds for nullification of evidence in a criminal trial.

1986 U.S. Supreme Court case Lockhart v. McCree excludes objectors to the death penalty on juries in capital punishment cases.

1965 U.S. Supreme Court case Singer v. United States mandated jury trials in federal court unless given permission for a bench trial by the government.

2021 U.S. Supreme Court case Jones v. Mississippi rendered a finding of “permanent incorrigibility” in cases of sentencing minors to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole unnecessary.

1991 U.S. Supreme Court case Harmelin v. Michigan clarified that mandatory minimum sentences, even when excluding extenuating circumstances, don’t violate the 8th amendment.

1984 Pulley v. Harris determined courts aren’t required to compare death penalty eligible cases to that of other similar cases before meting out capital punishment to defendants.

Jurors in jury trials are mentally subjected to a litany of social, racial, ethnic, and mental biases clouding their judgement to deliver an impartial decision on deciding if a defendant or defendants are guilty or not guilty.

Anyone who understands the legal system knows it’s customary, a rite of passage if you will, to know about everyone’s Miranda rights stemming from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court Miranda v. Arizona case that ruled evidence obtained, i.e. statements, without advising suspects of their rights cannot be used against them at a criminal trial.

Why would you need to be protected against self-incrimination? Surely it’s to prevent the government from coercing a confession out of the accused.

It’s not just made for that, it also stands in as a consolation for police officers who are trained in interrogation using what’s called the “Reid technique” ensuring the defendant makes a false confession.

Not only is that used as a statement of admittance at trial, the defendant may also get charged with perjury.

Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine if a cop uses deceptive tactics on a suspect on the street and/or the interrogation room they won’t lie on the witness stand during proceedings of a trial?

Prosecutors have unfettered powers for what charges can be brought up against a defendant, even if the charges don’t make sense to be brought up on to a defendant to begin with. A legal precedent in the court system.

Moreover, they’re allocated a well-endowed budget. More so than the defendant, thus tilting the legal playing field in their favor for the so-called “public” to win.

Lastly, prosecutors use this morally (though not legally) coercive strategy where they’ll overcharge a defendant on crimes in order for them to plead guilty to fewer and/or lesser criminal charges.

Judges tend to be vindictive. It’s not supposed to be this way, yet it is.

What I mean by vindictive is if you don’t plead guilty to a crime, you’re most likely gonna be “made an example out of” and sentenced to the maximum sentence allowed by statute.

In some cases, even flat-out pleading guilty can make Judges sentence you out of spite with zero consideration for severity of the crime or focus on rehabilitation, simply because no one can stop them from acting on feelings of lawfully despotism.

Cruel and usual punishment is protected under the 8th amendment. Ever wonder why we have the death penalty legal in the federal justice system and in some states across the USA?

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, four years later in 1976 we saw it reinstated in Gregg v. Georgia.

What amendment was this decided under you may ask? The one protecting us against cruel and unusual punishment.

Compare this to other developed nations around the world, you’ll see they don’t have the death penalty, thus highlighting capital punishment as unusual.

1987 U.S. Supreme Court case Singer v. United States found capital punishment is fair game even if the defendant didn’t intend to cause a death in a felony murder case.

1987 U.S. Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp disregards racial statistics on capital punishments.

2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Ewing v. California paved the way for the Golden State’s draconian 3-strikes law.

2006 U.S. Supreme Court case Oregon v. Guzek disregarded permitting defendants from submitting innocent-based evidence during a sentencing phase of trial.

2019 U.S. Supreme Court case Madison v. Alabama greenlights executions of those who didn’t remember committing a murder, i.e. dementia.

Protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, as well as protecting your right to have due process in the legal system, is protected under the 5th amendment.

In a sense, you’re innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Due process is futile when you have a bail system permitting courts to charge defendants bail to be released back into the community well before they’ve even been convicted of a crime of the nature brought forth against them by the state while awaiting their sentence.

Get this: courts have held that police can force you to unlock your cellphone if it has biometric (fingerprint and face scan) security.

2011 U.S. Supreme Court case Bobby v. Dixon contradicts Miranda v. Arizona in the way that police don’t have to tell you of your rights when you’re not in police custody.

2010 U.S. Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins spat in the face of Miranda v. Arizona by taking away your right to be silent.

What I’m trying to say is you need to explicitly verbalize your right to remain silent to invoke your right to remain silent.

When your partner chooses not to answer you about whether or not they want to have sex with you, that’s not consent towards intercourse. At that point it’d be sexual assault.

The 2nd amendment explicitly states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Meanwhile, people who use recreational drugs of any kind are statutorily prohibited by federal law from owning a firearm.

Granted, there’s been a federal case recently ruling in favor of a defendant charged with gun ownership while simultaneously being a user of marijuana and overturning their conviction at the time of this article being published.

To add insult to injury, any felonies on your record regardless if non-violent or violent is an automatic disqualifier from owning a gun.

If Uncle Sam wasn’t bad enough with unlawfully regulating firearms you should take a look at a handful of states.

California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, and New York are among the top 10 states for gun control in increments of high capacity bans, guns at protests prohibited, interview with local police chief for discretionary approval, fully-auto and assault weapon bans, and mandatory waiting periods for firearm purchases.

Freedom of speech in the 1st amendment is meant to protect you against unlawful curtailment of your right to say disparaging things about the government.

In addition, it gives you the right to practice any religion you see fit and to peacefully assemble (think protests).

Too bad the U.S. Supreme Court decided it didn’t retroactively apply in these cases.

1941 U.S. Supreme Court case Cox v. New Hampshire ruled that local and state governments can pass laws mandating permits for large gatherings of protests.

1969 U.S. Supreme Court case Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham gave way for townships and cities to deny permits to protest events if they deem it as a threat to public safety within their community.

2007 U.S. Supreme Court case Morse v. Frederick declared promoting illegal drug use was outside the protection of freedom of speech.

1988 U.S. Supreme Court Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier held that student speech in a school-sponsored newspaper can be censored by the faculty.

2025 U.S. Supreme Court case TikTok, Inc. v. Garland eroded TikTok’s ability to fall under the dominion of a foreign company under the guise of “national security”.

Imagine this: the 1st amendment doesn’t just protect people from freedom of speech, it protects unions, super PACs, and corporations.

2010 U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC granted corporations, and super PACs (political action committees) and even unions the right to independently spend on politician and political issue-based campaigns.

Yes, you read that right! Super PACs, corporations, and unions have been recognized as being considered in the same category as people under the 1st amendment.

Right of privacy in the 4th amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizures without probable cause or a warrant.

However, you wouldn’t even think this for what I’m gonna explain to you.

1975 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce has established warrantless searches within 100 miles of the border.

1976 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Martinez-Fuerte gave border patrol the okay to set up checkpoints within the border zone to crack down on illegal immigration.

That same year, Heien v. North Carolina ruled an officer who mistakens the law when conducting a traffic stop doesn’t violate the 4th amendment.

2009 U.S. Supreme Court Herring v. United States said police can search you and your property illegally over a mistake.

2013 U.S. Supreme Court case Maryland v. King ruled that buccal swabs are permissible as if it were fingerprinting.

1990 U.S. Supreme Court case Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz ruled that police sobriety checkpoints are legal.

1984 U.S. Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T. L. O. constructed a path for school administrators to search students on school property without a warrant.

In the exact same year, Oliver v. United States sprouted up a legal doctrine known as the “open-field doctrine” where searches done in a field not immediately surrounding a private quarters does not violate the 4th amendment.

Safford United School District v. Redding, while declaring the broad search done on a pupil who at the time was a girl was unconstitutional, school administrators were granted legal immunity from conducting illegal searches.

Slavery was abolished thanks to the passing of the 13th amendment.

Sadly, our judicial branch partially eroded this freedom via court cases.

1918 U.S. Supreme Court case Arver v. United States, otherwise known as Selective Draft Law Cases, finds the selective services, or the draft for times of war, to be a constitutional government program.

Upon thorough examination of the 13th amendment you’ll notice slavery is illegal except for instances where a victim has been subjected to incarceration.

Because that loophole was added into the final version of the amendment, prison labor is a lucrative business to corporations to have modern day slave labor produce their products at miniscule wages where they’re often sold at exorbitant prices on markets.

Your scope of freedoms are at the mercy of our 3 branches of government.

Moreover, they’re subject to scrutiny at the state level too.

Do we really need lawmakers wearing suits and ties to determine what’s good and bad for us?

If we did, could we truly rely on them to grant us liberty for us to live out an average day-to-day life not impeding on the well-being and safety of another person?

Will corruption get in the way of how judges are influenced?

Can judges not allow ideologies to interfere with just decisions?

Is there a necessity for a centralized governmental power in regards to control over how free a person becomes before it encroaches on another person’s free will?

Should we have security and insurance to protect others while depriving freedoms to others?

Here’s a quote I came up with: “Societies managed by the inhabitants with direct action have the most freedom while societies managed by the lawmakers with police have the least freedom.”

uspirates.org/message-in-a-bot…

The weaponization of the federal government against its critics used to be a Republican Party talking point when President Joe Biden was in office. Now that President Donald Trump’s in charge, it’s become their playbook.

Journalists and nonprofits, including nonprofit newsrooms, are particularly vulnerable to governmental attacks. Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, for instance, has turned the investigatory power of the agency against the press, while the Department of Justice is pursuing investigations into nonprofits connected to left-leaning causes.

We wanted to learn more about how federal agencies like the FCC, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Justice are abusing their authority to target First Amendment rights, so we hosted a discussion with FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez and Ezra Reese, an expert in nonprofit tax law and political law from the Elias Law Group.

As Commissioner Gomez said at the outset of the event, “The First Amendment is, of course, a pillar of American democracy, and consumer access to independent, unbiased news and public information is being threatened by the government itself.” Gomez is so concerned about the Trump administration’s attacks on freedom of speech that she’s launched a “First Amendment Tour” to speak out against what she calls a campaign of censorship and control.

youtube.com/embed/7MPn-OIbGqI?…

With respect to the FCC, in particular, Gomez explained, “Our licensing authority is being weaponized to curtail the freedom of the press, and these actions set a dangerous precedent that undermines the freedom of the press and the trust in the FCC’s role as an impartial regulator.” Carr has revived, launched, or threatened a slew of baseless “investigations” into broadcasters and public media based on their First Amendment-protected activities.

As a result, Gomez said, broadcasters are being chilled. “I have heard from broadcasters who told me that they are asking their reporters to be careful about how they are reporting about this administration because they are so afraid of being dragged before the FCC,” she said.

Nonprofit organizations, including nonprofit newsrooms, are also feeling the chilling effect of investigations by the Department of Justice intended to silence critics of the administration. Reese described the DOJ’s targeting of nonprofit organizations as “terrifying,” citing investigations of environmental groups and Democratic fundraising outlets. One particular threat to nonprofits is the possibility of being designated a “terrorist” organization based on routine protest activity, Reese said.

In many instances discussed by Gomez and Reese, officials have hijacked vague legal standards to use them in ways that would threaten the First Amendment. The FCC, for instance, has brought investigations under its “news distortion” policy or sought to use its statutory language instructing it to license the airwaves in the public interest to go after news outlets it disfavors because of their coverage.

Gomez was highly critical of these moves, explaining, “The idea that the FCC would take enforcement action or revoke a broadcast license based on editorial decisions is antithetical to the First Amendment and the Communications Act, which prohibits the FCC from censorship.” As she succinctly put it, “The administration is conflating the public interest with its interests.”

Similarly, vague standards in criminal statutes or the tax code could also be used against nonprofits, including nonprofit news outlets, Reese warned. “The current law is very permissive to the federal government, either the president or using other agencies like the secretary of state declaring organizations to be terrorist organizations,” Reese said. “The standards are very loose.”

IRS standards that nonprofits rely on to guide their activities while maintaining their nonprofit status are also often “cobbled together” using administrative rulings by the IRS known as revenue rulings. These rulings, Reese said, “could easily be reversed.” For journalism nonprofits, in particular, Reese flagged that the precedents are “ancient” and do not address social media or shorter-form online journalism. While nonprofit news outlets have significant protections under tax law, Reese warned, “Any nonprofit organization should have some idea of what they’re going to do if the IRS or somebody else comes after them.”

In addition to being prepared, both Gomez and Reese emphasized the importance of speaking out in support of First Amendment rights. Reese cited the “power in shining a light,” noting that both journalists and individuals can bring attention to attacks but also to the organizations that are doing the right thing and fighting back. Similarly, Gomez said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and we cannot allow this administration to trample all over the First Amendment in our democracy without speaking up.”

Gomez and Reese are right. The Trump administration’s attacks on the press and nonprofits are meant to cement government control by silencing dissenting voices. That’s why here at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), we’ll continue to speak up against these abuses and encourage journalists and the public to do the same. Using our freedom of speech is our best and most powerful weapon for fighting back.

freedom.press/issues/federal-a…