Open letter to Aaron Siri

amazing lawyer for ICAN

Dear Mr Siri,

It was a thrill to meet you in person, and exchange a thought with you last week on Wednesday at the Hanover Inn, in Hanover NH, where you appeared to speak for the crowd who could afford the expense. I didn’t feel I could. So I missed out. I think it was 500 dollars. I can do a lot with that kind of money, I can buy 3 courses, or fly places. At any rate, I do hang on your work and make monthly donations!

All this aside, if you recall, I asked you about the media publishing falsehoods with regard to Covid, and I suggested to bring claims of failure to warn? You said they do not have a duty to warn. That was the extent of our conversation and time. I began to think about that. Please consider:

Clearly, they believe they do not have a duty to warn, and clearly the outcome of failing to warn, which is the duty to prevent harm to another, has been catastrophic with regard to covid. The press’s freedom to lie exists in its absence of duty to warn. I hold they do not have a duty to warn should be argued. I believe they Do have a duty to warn, this duty appears for every individual, independent of the trappings of corporations or within. The duty to warn is a lawful duty that outweighs fiduciary duty to shareholders, and thus also any narrative obedience to corporate advertisers.

The duty to warn (of impending doom, danger or damage to anothers’ person) is a fundamental to the condition of being human. The primary drive for financial success, may not override this duty. When we allow it to do so, we have lost our humanity. We have surrendered ourselves to evil. If a child, or infirm person wanders into the path of an ongoing train, we have the duty to stop them if we can, and prevent harm. For example, if that this toddler could grow up to compete with your own children, is not a lawful excuse to fail to prevent the child from toddling itself into harms’ way. Similarly, if a lie, a fabrication, or a known omission is going to cause physical harm, a duty to prevent its harm rests on the shoulders of the press. THIS is the duty of the press, and upon which its freedom’s rest. Freedom is not an irresponsible state of perpetuation of evil intent. No, freedom has its responsibility to humanity. Facts may not be lied about, though they are today fabricated out of thin air, as a matter of ‘freedom of the press’.

Someone needs to push back.

I do believe that it should be argued that the press’ freedoms are absolutely predicated on its duty to warn. Given that those freedoms were enshrined for the very rational purpose of being governmental oversight, making the press our unofficial 4th branch of government, the wherein criticism of government IS its role, so that a more perfect union MAY be perfected, a duty to warn is foundational to their rights. Freedom of the press as private entities to censor and limit public opinion is a separate argument from the press’s duty to warn.

Just as it is illegal to shout fire in a crowded theatre absent an emergency, as a matter of freedom of speech it needs to be argued that as a matter fo freedom of the press, it is illegal to deliberately create panic for the sake of uncritical compulsion to comply. Just as it is unlawful to stand idly by while a toddler teeters towards an oncoming train, or an elderly person or anyone that another can prevent harm to, it is unlawful for the press to refute and refuse information that without which will cause eminent harm to members of the public.

It’s really simple as that. You can embellish it and find all kinds of case law. However, I do believe the premise is true. An excellent attorney could successfully argue this point.

Please some thought into the premise, for you are exactly the caliber of attorney who could successfully argue the freedoms of the press rest in their duty to warn.