Anyone who has followed Luke Rudkowski as he gained currency in this world may be appraising the following as one of his better efforts to inform and help defend the people.

Someone like me is triggered by such reports and during that triggering the idea just pops in my head - perhaps you can agree - that the so-called right to speak is not about so-called journalism, it is about the common law.

The right to HOLD CRIMINALS in government to account for their CRIMES, involves the discovery step, the connecting to other people with the evidence of the discovery step - now 2 steps - and then the spread of that discovery of the the evidence to other people step, which is now three steps.

One discovers
One finds someone else who agrees that the discovery warrants a cause to act in defense against clear and present dangers from enemies foreign and/or domestic.
Two spread, because "we can" the evidence to warn like the meme known as "one if by land, two if by sea" other people.

Three steps so far.

Then the criminals order you to shut the fuck up.

Now you arrive at the meaning of the 1st amendment.

It does not involve the employee known as a journalist who is employed by a employer who employs a journalist for pay.

It involves common law principles.

It involves the formation of a common law committee of (or for) safety, because we the people can communicate with each other to form such a thing.

It involves the formation of a common law accusation, a witness statement in oral or written form, as the best evidence useful for our defense, and the passing on of that accusation to a lawful individual who is lawfully empowered to form a grand jury of independent members of the people for the purposes of defense against criminals foreign and domestic.

It involves the communications between the original receiver of the information in the form of a lawful accusation "protected by law" to alert the other members of the grand jury pool, so as to form a common law, lawful, legal, moral, just, right, expedient. grand jury, for the purposes of informing the suspects who are presumed to be innocent, to attend their opportunity to end the cause of action because according to the accused the accused is not guilty of anything at all, let alone what the accuser claims in the accusation.

No?

You can't respond?

It is too much work?