Freakin' Idiots!

If confirmed, Sonia Sotomayor would be the first Latina on the Supreme Court. Her story is inspiring: She grew up in a poor neighborhood in the Bronx, but managed to rise through the Ivy League and into a seat on one of the highest courts in the land.

Barack Obama boasts that she has a "common touch," and that her life experiences will help her make compassionate decisions.

But sadly, Sotomayor has chosen to ignore the needs of our nation's most persecuted minority group: Nerd-Americans.

Thousands of Nerd-Americans depend on nunchaku -- combined with ninja-like reflexes -- to floor attackers many times their size. But New York law bans the possession of nunchaku, or "chuka sticks," leaving Nerd-Americans in the state defenseless against muggings and epic wedgies.

For a brief moment, there was hope. James Maloney, a proud defender of the ancient nunchaku tradition, challenged the constitutionality of New York's oppressive law.

The case was callously dismissed by a district court.

In his time of need, he turned to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A panel of three justices, including Sotomayor, examined his case. They had a chance to right a grievous wrong, and strike a blow for Nerd-rights everywhere.

And yet, they chose to turn Maloney away, like some kind of hideous legal puppy that no one could love.

In their ruling, Sotomayor and her cronies asserted that the Second Amendment didn't apply to the states, making his complaint invalid.

But they didn't stop there. Instead, Sotomayor & Co. decided to slander the art of nunchaku-wielding by repeating a torrent of fear-mongering that would make Janet Napolitano blush:

The legislative history of section 265.00 makes plain that the ban on possession of nunchakus imposed by section 265.01(1) is supported by a rational basis. Indeed, as Appellant concedes, when the statute was under consideration, various parties submitted statements noting the highly dangerous nature of nunchakus. For example, New York’s Attorney General, Louis J. Lefkowitz, asserted that nunchakus “ha[ve] apparently been widely used by muggers and street gangs and ha[ve] been the cause of many serious injuries.” Mem. from Attorney Gen. Louis J. Lefkowitz to the Governor (Apr. 8, 1974). And the sponsor of the bill, Richard Ross, stated that “[w]ith a minimum amount of practice, [the nunchaku] may be effectively used as a garrote, bludgeon, thrusting or striking device. The [nunchaku] is designed primarily as a weapon and has no purpose other than to maim or, in some instances, kill.” See N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00, practice commentary, definitions (“Chuka stick”) (quoting Letter of Assemblyman Richard C. Ross to the Counsel to the Governor (1974)).

Shame on you, Sotomayor. Shame on you, New York. America was founded on the belief that every man had the right to disable his foes with the Japanese weapon of his choosing. But as soon as your nerdophobic tendencies kick in, none of that matters to you.

As a Supreme Court justice, you'll have a chance to redeem yourself. You'll have another shot at forming an alliance with the Nerd-American community.

If you reject them, don't come crying to me when a chaotic elven wizard inflicts 30 points of damage on you with his rod of shadows.

Indecent Psychological Exposure?

Every month or so, conservatives find a new what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-England story to shake their heads at.

Kids having babies.

Sharia law becoming civil law.

And now this: Conservative talk-show host Michael Savage has been officially banned from England. According to Jaqui Smith, the director of the British Home Office, his presence in merry olde England would "cause inter-community tension or even violence."

Really?

Savage is a provocative guy. He gets angry -- a lot. And naturally, he has more than his share of detractors. But he isn't in the habit of commanding his listeners to commit acts of violence. Love him or hate him, grouping Savage with neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists is absurd.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this move has more to do with punishing someone for holding unpopular (i.e. unacceptable) views than it does with maintaining public tranquility.

Still, England's seeming censorship of Savage is only the latest sad chapter in the larger story of England's weak stance on the freedom of speech. Due to libel laws that are weighted against defendants, England is being used as an international center for the censorship of controversial material:

While in the United States the plaintiff must prove that the claims against him are false, in English law the defendants' claims are presumed false until proven otherwise: he has to demonstrate his innocence. If his defence fails, he must pay both costs and damages. The plaintiff's lawyers make little attempt to limit their costs: the partners at one well-known firm charge £750 an hour. The bill can rise to millions.

Perhaps you don't live in England or Wales, so you think this has nothing to do with you. You're wrong. English libel law now applies to everyone on Earth. Make any accusation, anywhere in the world, and if the subject can demonstrate that a single person in England or Wales has read it, you could be sued here for every penny, cent, rouble, rupee or renminbi you possess. The internet and the global nature of publishing ensure that these medieval laws have become the most powerful extra-territorial legislation ever drafted.

In other words, if you write something controversial about someone in America, and someone can read it in England, they can come after you. In response to the growth of British "libel tourism," Congress is considering a bill that would prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgements that violate the 1st amendment. A good move -- but it won't help blacklisted Savage.

If the Obama administration has any guts, it should step up to defend one of our country's most prominent voices. What ever happened to "I may disagree with what you have to say -- but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?