One of the themes I’ve been covering is government interference with the internet—from the FEC trial balloon to judges declaring just who gets to be an “official journalist.” After all, we can’t expect the Establishment lapdogs to give fair coverage to Second Amendment issues.

Here’s another example: Kid catches principal smoking on school grounds, in violation of state law—something the kid would get suspended for. Kid posts pictures on the internet. Principal demands kid remove pictures and suspends him.

In other words, a sovereign citizen exposes a corrupt official violating the law. The official demands that he erase all traces of his expose, and uses her official capacity to punish him.

“The school, says an AP account, “had sent the sophomore a letter telling him he was suspended for harassment and slander via the Internet.”

Yo, public skool administraitors: That would be “libel." Assuming you had a case. Which you don't.

Once exposed, the tyrant wannabe apologized—FOR SMOKING, as opposed to abusing authority to trample a sovereign individual's unalienable rights in order to protect her sorry butt. Here’s what is unclear:

“On Tuesday, the sophomore was offered reinstatement but only if he complied with the removal order.”

WTF? If I were the kid, my response would be “Remove THIS!” followed with a hefty lawsuit.

To his credit, the site still stands.

You can reach Czarina (or is that Fuhrerette?) Elaine Almagno here. Ask her who the OTHER “adult” in the picture with her is, and why HE thinks it’s OK for the law to apply to the ruled but not to the rulers.

Elaine—try suing ME for “slander,” you abusive mandarin.