Sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email.

Speaking engagements

  • Invite Alan Korwin to speak at your event! Thought-provoking, entertaining, freedom-oriented topics -- your guests will thank you for the excitement -- long after the applause ends!


« November 2013 | Main | January 2014 »

186 Things Duck Dynasty Missed

GLAAD not the only one miffed

People jailed, even dying, over tongue slips

When the world exploded over a few things Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty said, it overlooked hundreds of others that have gotten people arrested, fired or even killed, as free speech has lost its protective value in the past few decades, according to a book that carefully documents the loss, Bomb Jokes at Airports.

"Sure, saying Merry Christmas could get you fired," says the book's author, Alan Korwin, who has written 14 books, including Bomb Jokes at Airport--and 186 other things you better not say, about the limits of free speech. "But revealing that our own government is supplying guns to Mexican drug lords, or that the NSA is spying on all of us can force you into hiding, just for speaking truth to power," and it gets worse, he says.

Korwin was censored by the city of Phoenix recently for saying "Guns save lives," in a case that made national headlines (NY TimesUSA TodayFOX NewsCapitol News Service). "Why should we be burdened with such messages," was the city's position, as the case went to the Arizona Court of Appeals, and may go all the way, with the ACLU as an amicus to the Goldwater Institute's defense of Mr. Korwin's right to make statements some politicians would prefer to suppress.

Bomb Jokes at Airports looks at more than 200 people, some of them murdered, many arrested, bankrupted, ruined, suspended or just humiliated, for saying things that met with disapproval, and were no longer protected under the classic belief that, "It's a free country and I can say what I want."

It's a common misconception that the First Amendment only controls the government. While it's true that tremendous legal protection attaches to political speech in an official context, popular opinion and court precedent firmly recognizes broad protection for a "court of popular opinion" protection for Americans to speak their minds freely without fear of reprisal or criminal prosecution.

This has eroded in recent years as the "angry gay" community, "aggressive racism" community, and other "offensive" political correctness groups have organized to act collectively to suppress speech, making many average citizens terrified of speaking freely or even telling jokes. Although federal prosecutors have been slow to act, conspiracy to deny civil rights is a serious federal crime that can include the death penalty (18 USC §241 et seq.) College campuses have limited candid political talk to "free speech zones," with certain types of open dialog on "politically incorrect" topics virtually banned by "speech codes."

Bomb Jokes at Airports, with hundreds of examples (the book stopped changing its title at 186) is available for review on request to legitimate media outlets. Retail copies are just $19.95. It is a stunning, sometime hilarious, sometimes terrifying read.
See all of Alan Korwin's books:

And 186 Other Things You’d Better Not Say
add_to_cart.gif  view_cart.gif
352 pages, only $19.95 +S&H

Things you can't say anymore? LIKE WHAT?

“Are you married?”
Muzzled during job interviews by the EEOC, federal law
It's an “illegal question” says The New York Times

“Apartment for rent with picture window, walk-in closet.”
Muzzled in newspaper ads by the FHA, federal law

“Tart cherries are good for you.”
Muzzled in advertising by the FDA, federal regulations

“That's so gay.”
Muzzled in public schools by the California Supreme Court

“How many roads must a man walk down,
before you can call him a man.”

Muzzled by NYC school administrators and textbook makers

“Vote for John McCain.”
Muzzled in broadcasts within 60 days of an election
by the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act

“Guns are good.”

Muzzled by policy at mainstream newspapers in America

“Guns save lives.
Muzzled by policy at TV networks and their affiliates
Muzzled by the City of Phoenix (currently in litigation)

“Merry Christmas.”
Muzzled at department stores by political correctness

“Ho ho ho.”
Muzzled by Al Sharpton after Don Imus said, "nappy headed ho" (context dependent)

“Is the jury aware they can acquit me if they think the law is bad?”
Muzzled by judges who don't believe in fully informed juries

“Are you in this country legally?”
Muzzled by sanctuary cities that keep their police on a tight leash

American free speech is reaching the breaking point where any
politically correct or diversely foolish idea muzzles your right to freely speak.

“Korwin's latest book is a stunning, frightening look at how weak free speech is getting.
His plan to use federal 'anti-muzzling' statutes to fight back makes sense.”

Read the book.


Use telemarketing pests, don't hang up on them.

Don't just hang up on these annoying slugs like you do now.


Turn them into assets.

It's easy. It's fun. It's a tactic that works.

I do it all the time, you can too. It's a gas!


1 - Take control of the phone call after they ask their first question.

They always ask a question, that's how telemarketing works.

You ask, "Can I ask you a question?"

They always say yes.


2 - Ask: "Do you own a gun?"

(You might have to repeat that for some of them.)


3 - If they say, "no," or won't say, remind them:

"Ya know, that's dangerous. What if someone breaks into your home?"


Be silent. You've planted the seed.


Talk to them for as long as you like.

They have forgotten why they called.


You are reaching a person who needs to be reached.

Do it for freedom.


If they DO own a gun (or guns!) and start jawing away:

4 - You ask: "What state are you in?"

And then: "Are you a member of your state gun-rights group?"

Convince them into every group there is, for all the right reasons.

Make us all stronger.


Now, I can also sell them books on preserving our gun rights,

and knowing your gun laws and what to do after a shooting.

Hey, it's a sales call. It's a two-way street.


When I'm ready, I tell them, "Listen, I've got to go now,

but thanks for talking with me. Have a great day!"


Stop wasting telemarketers on the phone.

Use 'em.

This really works.

Leaves you feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

Many of them thank me.

Others don't know what hit 'em.

You want to DO something.

Do this.


Let me know how it goes for you.


Iran to Continue Developing A-Bomb with Restored Funding

The lamestream media told you:

And you heard it with your own ears, saw it with your own eyes, last year, at the final Presidential debate in Boca Raton, Mr. Obama repeated three times that the aim of his diplomatic overtures to the terror-sponsoring islamist Tehran regime was to "end Iran's nuclear program."

Now, however, the lamestream media told you:

"Secretary of State Kerry provides relief;
Mr. Obama presses forward with plan"

Washington Post wakes up: "More than two weeks after a landmark deal with Iran, House Republicans and Democrats called the Obama administration’s approach to nuclear negotiations naive and signaled that they will slap more sanctions on the country despite warnings that doing so would torpedo the United States’ best chance in years at rapprochement."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Obama's negotiators have offered and closed a deal with Iran to provide relief from punishing trade sanctions in exchange for virtually no concessions that allow the terrorists running the jihad-sponsoring nation to continue running their uranium-enriching centrifuges, and produce the precursors for nuclear bombs they say they don't want to make. They have more than 10,000 centrifuges enriching uranium 24 hours a day (up from 1,200 when negotiations began).

Iran will allow inspections at two of its nuclear development sites as part
of the deal. It has at least 12 sites. This is one of them. You can find them
all on the web like I did.

In other words, they proceed toward bomb making in exchange for getting billions of dollars. Say what? It is no deal at all. Why would the Christian president of America do that for islamist terrorists running Iran? Israel's Prime Minister has already warned us, "Today the world has become a much more dangerous place." Israel's Economics Minister, Naftali Bennett, said: “If a nuclear suitcase blows up five years from now in New York or Madrid it will be because of the deal signed this morning.” Read that quote again.

Iran will allow inspections at two of its nuclear development sites as
part of the deal. It has at least 12 sites. This is one of them. You can find
them all on the web like I did.

Hundreds of cheering supporters greeted Iran's negotiators as they arrived back in Tehran on Sunday, after reaching an interim nuclear agreement with the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany. Carrying flowers and Iranian flags at Tehran's airport, they hailed Iran's foreign minister as an "ambassador of peace."

According to the BBC, Iran will give greater access to inspectors, including daily access at the Natanz and Fordo nuclear sites. There will be no further development of the Arak plant, Iran says, which it is believed could produce plutonium, and is not included in the inspections. Iran has at least 12 nuclear development sites, so they must think we are complete idiots, which is a fair assessment. The BBC did a good job of outlining what our government did for Iran, in concert with our "allies":

Iran will allow inspections at two of its nuclear development sites as part
of the deal. It has at least 12 sites. This is one of them. You can find them
all on the web like I did.

"There will be no further development of the Arak plant, Iran says, which it is believed could produce plutonium, and is not included in the inspections."

"There will be no further development of the Arak plant, Iran says, which it is believed could produce plutonium, and is not included in the inspections."

Secretary Kerry could not be reached for comment. Could not be reached for comment.


Show nothing but calm deference and respect when attending memorials.
Think about your own children and families and how precious they are.

Elsewhere, make signs on your computer for standard size paper.

These show up well on camera and in newspapers.

Use large block type that fills the page, between 120 and 300 points in size.

The font shown here is called Impact and works well, lots of weight.

You can make one copy on your computer,
then reproduce many at a copy shop.
Print them out on colored paper for more visibility.
Use card stock so they hold up better.
You'll be spending dimes, very cost effective.
Hold them up near your face, they get into the photo frame well.
100 signs costs a few bucks, multiplies your presence.

Watch where the camera operator is aiming for best results.
Stand behind people being interviewed, increase your exposure.
Large poster boards get cut off, message gets lost, these are better.

Here's Bob Blackmer, close friend and member of The Cartridge Family Band,
pictured on the front of The Washington Times, holding the kind of sign
I'm encouraging you to make and use. He's in front of the U.S. Supreme Court,
during the Heller case. Compare his visibility to the other guy.
Some newspaper readers have never seen this message before.



Here's the Uninvited Ombudsman, pictured in The New York Times.
(I'm on the right, the NY Times caption has it wrong.)
Compare the readability of my 8-1/2 x 11-inch blue sign
to the handwritten poster of the anti-rights guy.
He had his one sign, we had many of ours all over,
getting coverage, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court,
during the McDonald v. Chicago gun-rights case.
Ours packed easily for the flight.


Try these messages for any people "dancing in the blood of victims"
on Dec. 14, using the acts of a madman killing children,
as an excuse for leverage, to attack our precious rights:



Innocent People










Don't forget, signs can be made "landscape" (horizontal)


Two known events are planned by
Moms Demand Action and
Arizonans for Gun Safety,
a Bloomberg-funded anti-rights group:

9:35 a.m. "Vigil"
Memorial Presbyterian Church
4141 E Thomas Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85018


3 p.m. Catalina Park, Tucson

(With coordination by your government)

Newtown Tragedy Being Staged for Anti-Rights Assault

The lamestream media told you:

Virtually nothing. But lamestream stories of massacres as old as the Long Island railroad madman shooting in the 1990s that launched a political career have been flooding the public, with anti-rights screeds, in preparation for the Dec. 14 momentum aimed at enacting anti-rights legislation the nation has been steadfastly unwilling to pass.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Nationwide events coordinated through the White House, using funding from billionaire NY mayor Michael Bloomberg, planned to recognize the calamity surrounding the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have been kept out of the news. The thinly veiled anti-rights events will be staged as "remembrances" of the Sandy Hook psychotic massacres. Normal remembrances are typically somber low-key reflections kept out of the limelight, that do not attract and exploit "news" coverage. Some of these will be dramatically different.

Newtown itself reportedly has decided to exclude news crews on Dec. 14.
Good for them. Our hearts and condolences go out to them.

Calls for guarding and protecting schools, which could help protect children, are largely falling on deaf ears. Increased scrutiny of mentally unfit people walking the streets, are rejected by some of the very people who are instead seeking to attack Second Amendment rights. Some misguided activists will work both openly and covertly to weaken or destroy the rights of Americans who had no part in the atrocities committed one year ago, against helpless victims in a make-believe gun-free zone perpetrated by teachers, "officials," anti-rights politicians and the Obama administration.

"Politico reported Monday that weekly sessions on gun control have been held between the White House Office of Public Engagement and representatives from Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, the Center for American Progress, Organizing for Action and Americans for Responsible Solutions." (From my files, October)  If they are compromising the Second Amendment they violate their oath and should be removed. This may seem quaint but it matters.

Both pro-rights and anti-rights groups have announced intentions to use the anniversary, Dec. 14, and the next day, dubbed Guns Save Lives Day, to press for action on gun rights in America. Efforts to restrict Americans' right to arms, using the actions of psychopaths as a motivation, have thus far failed. News stories have been appearing for weeks listing various atrocities, committed by uncontrolled deranged individuals in pretend gun-free cities like Chicago and Washington D.C.

Oral argument in the "Guns Save Lives" censorship case !!

Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013, 9:30 a.m., KORWIN v. CITY OF PHOENIX; 1 CA-CV 12-0878 

[Backgrounder: We put up "Guns Save Lives" billboards on 50 public bus stops under contract, city of Phoenix tore them down, Goldwater Institute is suing on our behalf, ACLU joined as amicus, it's now going into its 4th year.]

See the ads before they were torn down, and read prior details about the case:

Our new ads are now getting 1.8 million views daily on Phoenix streets:


So, how'd it go Alan?

No one really knows.

We find out for sure within a month to a year, maybe longer. The appeals court decides when it wants, there is no time frame for the three-judge panel's opinion (Jones, Norris, Johnsen). This is called "speedy justice." We're going into our fourth year of censorship.

I found it a little overwhelming -- I thought I knew the issues, it seemed they focused elsewhere. Twenty minutes for each side is a lot when the concentration level is that high. The judges had studied the briefs, conferenced on the issues, knew their stuff, questioned both sides hard, pressed the city on its stance that classifying and censoring speech was just fine.

Continue reading "Oral argument in the "Guns Save Lives" censorship case !!" »

Dangerous Police Overreaction

The lamestream media told you:

According to USA Today on 11/5/13: "Law enforcement officials had swarmed around the Northern N.J. mall Monday night after witnesses reported multiple gunshots were fired as stores were preparing to close.

"'He came to the mall and fired what is at least six rounds at random striking several different locations,' Molinelli said. Panic quickly spread among shoppers and mall employees, he said. There were no injuries reported aside from Shoop [the suspected perp, who killed himself.]

"In all, more than 500 SWAT and law enforcement officials searched the mall while an estimated 400 people remained trapped inside, Molinelli said."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Even an ignorant civilian like the Uninvited Ombudsman can see that an enemy, intent on causing havoc, can play upon the over-eager geared-up, military-minded, unregulated macho cops who flood into an area, leaving every other nearby place under-protected. It's called lack of a plan and... create a diversion.  If you had to define "overreaction," 500 SWAT and police responders to the sound of gunshots would be perfect. No commanders were held responsible for the poor allocation of forces. The cost to the city was undisclosed.

Lone muslim jihadis intent on causing havoc need only fire a few shots in a mall, in a few cities simultaneously, and Xmas shopping season is over. They know this, we're not revealing secrets here. Police obviously -- obviously -- are so high strung and unprepared, they flock to the sound of anything unusual, and leave every other duty behind. It is unfathomable that command and control allowed 500 armored police (if you can still call them police) flood to the site of one 20-year-old kid with a stolen rifle, who had killed himself by the time they got there.

"When seconds count, the (500) police are just minutes away." What would they do if another mall fell under "attack"? Or two?

USA Today continues: "'The shooter, for whatever reason, instead of staying and fighting, fled deeper into the mall,' said Chief Kenneth Ehrenberg of the Paramus police department [who almost sounds disappointed, and had to tell his officers to gear down and go home]. Police were still conducting a secondary search of the mall, going store to store and escorting the people still hiding within to safety, Ehrenberg said. He expected the search to continue for several hours. Police were still seeking a motive for the shootings, Ehrenberg said."

I'm going somewhere with this: It is time for authorities and rights groups to encourage or even demand discreet carry of firearms by civilians, and to eliminate dangerous and reckless make-believe gun-free zones like the one at the this N.J. mall. No other response will provide the coverage needed to protect the public from this sort of attack. Go ahead, argue with that, all 500 of you SWAT team members who arrived too late to protect the cowering masses, who you escorted to safety in your battle gear.


The Undetectable Firearms Act, 18 USC §922(p), which requires all firearms to be at least as recognizable by a metal detector as 3.7 ounces of specially shaped 17-4 PH stainless steel, was extended for 10 years without incident:


AN ACT To extend the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 10 years. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS ACT OF 1988 FOR 10 YEARS. Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking ``25'' and inserting ``35''.

Perpetually crafty N.Y senator Chuck Schumer waited until the last moment to introduce an amendment to require unremovable metal parts for all firearms, on this "must pass" gun bill.

That could have outlawed any gun that had wood parts, or any removable parts that were not made of metal, depending on who interpreted the statute. Oddly enough, a copy of his amendment has not been retrievable before press time.

Previous amendments, by both House and Senate, had proposed adding undetectable ammo magazines to this statute, but both of those had been removed before passage. I had brought this potentially disastrous situation to public attention, saying a single change to the number "25" was all that was needed, months before the media jumped on it in the final hours.

Before voting for the bill, democrat Sheila Jackson Lee said, "I support this legislation because it will help reduce gun violence and keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of terrorists." Right. Democrat Steve Israel, commenting before voting, said, "I am not going to oppose this first step because we can't get all of our steps. We will step forward and continue to support the modernization of the Undetectable Firearms Act. This for now is a very good step," and he expressed support for Schumer's unremovable metal parts plan. Legislators are, of course, removable.

Several others expressed support for other rights limiting laws, including one, HR1565, called the "Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act." Following standard democrat's procedure, it has nothing to do with rights protection. The "news" media uniformly fails to include bill numbers, making it difficult for the average person to look up the actual bills. Must be because of how much space bill numbers take up.

Excerpt from Your First Gun

Excerpt from Your First Gun
by Alan Korwin

"Contemporary images of a gun-free America may envision an entirely disarmed public, but do not go so far as to imagine an entirely disarmed state -- the police, the military and officials remain armed in such scenarios. Even in the hoplophobic fantasies of the most ardent anti-gun-rights advocates, police are armed to protect us from criminals who do not disappear with an imaginary gun evaporation.

"Somewhere deep inside, the idea of solving problems of peace and freedom by simply eliminating weapons nags. How would that work? The fascists, radicals, the hardened criminals, religious zealots, sociopaths and psychopaths, would-be dictators and tyrants -- they do not become peaceful or go away merely because we disarm and make ourselves defenseless.

"Instinctively we recognize this. Strategically, people charged with protecting us and freedom understand this. In fact, the problems supposedly solved by blanket disarmament get worse, since we can pretty much rely on bad actors picking up clubs, or knives, or enough machine tools to start making guns again.

"So the gun-free-society model generally presupposes a heavily armed government presence -- drug enforcement agents, secret service, air marshals, border patrol, customs officers, coast guard, postal inspectors, and of course, local sheriffs and police. Not to mention a National Guard, FBI, TSA, CIA, and armed forces of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Plus private detectives and some bodyguards, maybe private security forces for gated communities.

"Would American society remain the bastion of freedom, the linchpin of liberty on the entire face of the Earth, if the government was armed to the teeth and the public was completely disarmed? It is such a massive change from the way this country has always been, it is difficult to imagine the scope and effect of the change. The hopeful do dream of a world where hostility ends when government is fully in control at last. The skeptics aren't so sure...

"Of all the definitions of peace, the practical ones recognize a need to preserve peace. This preservation only comes through the use, or ability to threaten the use, of force. This is generally called peace through strength.

"Utopian notions of peace recognize a possibility of peace without force, and without even the potential to threaten force, in a world of true enlightenment and enduring tranquility, abundance and prosperity. This of course requires a fundamental shift in human nature across the planet, and does not appear likely any time soon.

"A magical world where weapons cease to exist -- where by a wave of a wand America is suddenly gun-free -- does not get us any closer to peace or freedom. In fact, it makes matters worse. The good guys, it turns out, need to be able to protect their freedoms...

"It's easy to picture a gun-free world. Just go back in time to before guns, and look at history. You find a more violent, less stable and less safe world than we enjoy today. In a gun-free world, instead of stick-up men, gang bangers, Al Capone, Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Dung, you have highwaymen, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Julius Caesar. They wiped out entire civilizations, and raped, pillaged and plundered, with impunity, without guns. It was times like those when you really needed a gun. Or two. And a whole lot more ammunition than whatever you had.

"Eliminating guns merely shifts the balance of power to the strong and the brutish. It does not eliminate the Four Horseman of Sociopathology -- Angry, Hungry, Stupid and Wicked. And it does not provide peace or enhance personal or national freedom. Until those horsemen are somehow defeated (and no one has even a remote idea on how to do that) the good guys need their guns. For safety. For protection. For deterrence. For the children.

"If guns suddenly disappeared by magic, the good guys would have to reinvent them, and quickly. It wouldn't be hard -- Communist China, Brazil, Italy, Russia and other high-quality gun-producing nations we have little control over would simply flood the market with product (with prices shifting as supply and demand move with market changes). Well-intentioned desires to disarm America typically overlook and would do nothing to stop weapon production abroad. (In fact, our own Army currently relies on the Italian Berretta for all its sidearms).

"Import restrictions would have roughly the same effect on guns as they do on illegal drugs and immigrant workers, namely nothing. If you like the war on drugs, you're going to love the war on guns..."

Guns Save Lives censorship case

Oral argument, Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.,
Arizona Court of Appeals, 1501 W. Washington, Phoenix, Courtroom 2, 2nd Floor.

FOX-TV Report:

[Note: You can meet me this weekend at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show,
biggest show of the year, absolutely huge, gifts galore, autographs, cool stuff, seminars,
ammo, Arizona State Fairgrounds, 19th Ave. and McDowell, Three Days -- Fri, Sat, Sun,
details, hours, discount coupons:, bring the family.]


Click the image for details

What's at stake (3 years into the censorship):

1. This notion that a public bus stop is a non-public venue is preposterous. It is absurd on its face to any normal person of average intelligence. When I tell people about this facet of the case they stare in disbelief, jaws agape. I let the silence hang for a while. I have read the briefsand understand the arguments and precedents. No amount of explanation, about the rarified atmosphere of the legal world, helps justify this bizarre excuse America's fifth largest city puts forward to deny our speech and allow its censorship of our message, at least to average citizens. In my opinion this needs to change.

2. Giving greater protection for commercial speech than political speech defies the underlying principles of free speech as I understand them (and I am not suggesting our ads were one or the other, as this case does). A city should not be an arbiter of such things. The Constitution makes no such distinction in any way, shape or form, as numerous attorneys and experts keep reminding me when this subject comes up. Both forms of speech should receive equal protection.

3. The fact that our message has been censored now going into its fourth year is an outrageous affront. It demolishes any notion people hold of speedy justice. It is a denial of justice, at the hands of the city and the courts the city and the state runs. It is inexcusable, and we now face further delays and unknowns even with this hearing imminent. Some expedient resolution would be fair if the case drags on, but we cannot expect one, which is why we are running new alternate ads, that the city can somehow judge acceptable. The fact that the city accepts the new ad (images below) highlights the inconsistency of their policies.

4. The hubris and malignant attitudes of those in a position of authority, to deign to tell us what we can and cannot say in public (short of fraud or indecency) so offends the sense of freedom in this country it is grounds for punishment against the offenders in my opinion. We realize this will never occur, but the fact they can do this to us with no repercussion or even fear of reprisal only encourages more of the same, and is injustice writ large. Wrongdoing deserves punishment. Just not in this case. Does that seem right to you?

5. The fact that none of the city officials could clearly identify why our ads were not acceptable makes it plain as day their actions are arbitrary and improper. The fact that they posted numerous ads that were clearly outside their published guidelines is glaring evidence that they make decisions in an inconsistent and unequal manner, favoring some ads and disfavoring others. I believe we were singled out because they don't like our message. They are prohibited from doing so, actions so far from their authorized duties and in such violation of our rights I feel it merits punishment. I fully understand we are not pursuing that, but it leaves me wondering who should, since someone should. Content-based discrimination is a terrible offense. A lack of punishment for official denial of rights encourages further denials. I probably shouldn't even say that.

6. This concept that the city can write our advertisements for us is so far beyond any delegated authority they do or should have defies imagination. No conceivable form of government in this nation dreams of a system where elected officials or unelected bureaucrats maintain internal ad agencies to concoct what advertisers are allowed to say, or how they should market their wares. Such tyrannical activity must be nipped in the bud, its berries plucked harsh and crude, its roots ripped with forced fingers rude (with thanks to John Milton for a well turned phrase).

7. We have been severely harmed by this censorship, disruption to our business, emotional distress, distraction from our real work, and extensive delays. I believe in my heart the resolution of the case ought to include something to make up for the egregious damage the city has caused us, but I understand it is not part of the case. It is my position that the city be required to post the advertisements again for at least as long as the original contract required. And that would just bring us back to even, where we would be -- had they not interfered more than three years ago.

8. If I were in charge (I'm not), to help compensate us for the enormous and unjustifiable delays, which could have put us out of business and caused us such grief, the posting should be at the city's expense, but I understand that's not how this system typically works. Considering the city's outrageous (my opinion) denial of our fundamental rights, interference with our contract and business, excruciating offense and delays, even that would barely be fair, but what do I know. The people I talk to, they think something like that wouldn't be unreasonable either, but what do they know.

9. I would like to learn who exactly decided to censor our ads, we never did find out.

Now you know how I feel, where I see the touchstones in the case, and what I would like to see as an outcome.

The Goldwater and ACLU attorneys goals, summarized from the filed briefs:

1. Establish state constitutions as a focal point in fundamental rights cases; and the Arizona state constitutional provision for free speech as providing greater than the federal protection, and paramount depending on context. Establish strict scrutiny as the only standard for free speech issues.

2. Require the city to implement guidelines that are constitutional, unambiguous, and provide clear guidance for what is and is not allowable. Prevent bureaucrats from acting with unfettered discretion, in an arbitrary and capricious manner, with discriminatory enforcement.

3. Put Korwin's signs back up. Even while making other determinations.

4. Eliminate Ninth Circuit and federal forum analysis from control in Arizona and elsewhere.

5. Challenge (overturn) the city's claim to allowable content-based restrictions on free speech.

Our side had mentioned relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in a brief; I would encourage a quick look at 18 U.S.C. §241 and §242, whose context may seem remote (to a legal mind at least, I'm not a lawyer), but whose written text is poignant, explicit and spot on. Google those if you want an eyeful: Denial of civil rights under color of law is a federal felony, with punishment including fines, imprisonment and up to the death penalty.





Go figure.

They should not be in the business of approving words.


Photos and montage by John Rosado of Rosado LegalShield for

We are now reaching 1.8 million viewers daily
with this message the lamestream media suppresses.

With all the hubbub surrounding guns in this day and age,
you would think people would welcome a little education and training.
Some of the people who talk about gun safety want anything but.
Read what people are saying about Page Nine, or tell Alan yourself.

See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at

About the Author

  • Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.

Recent Comments

Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!