Can I Get a Witness?

by Paul Alan Levy, Free Speech Hitman


You can only dream about it, but I possess it.  The secret of invisibility.


I can simultaneously be someplace, doing terrible things to vulnerable victims, and be elsewhere, covered by an invulnerable alibi.


I do not need an alibi.  My alibi is my identity.  I am a Citizen above suspicion.  For me to commit the crimes of which I am guilty, I would have to not be me.  But I am me, and so I am invisible, and invincible.  Even if I try to expose myself, I cannot.


I know this because I have tried, and you can see the film about how I failed.  I am also a scientific man, after the manner of Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, so I experimented.  I put my invulnerability  to the test.


I left my fingerprints all over the death of John Dozier.  I stalked him.  I was the bane of his existence.  Not a mocker of John Dozier was there who did not owe his right to mock him to me.  I don’t mock, but I sneer, and I sneered at John Dozier, with his white-collar conservative, just-plain-folks on the Internet tryin’ to keep order shtick.


I knew I could destroy him, and I wasn’t surprised that I killed him.  It wasn’t strictly necessary to conduct the experiment, but it made it a lot more convincing.  Death is a required element in many experiments.  Here it was optional, but added a touch of genuineness, because you know John didn’t fake his death.


He probably should have, in retrospect.  If he thought he could just fight his way through the consequences of his actions on the Internet, he learned different.  Well, at least there’s no Internet in heaven, and if all of John’s platitudes were any sign of sanctity, he’s probably enjoying a peaceful rest away from the Net right now.


Me, I’m better than ever.  Right, as long as I don’t think about what I did to John Dozier.  Not that it’s so hard.  Having a new victim to torment is always good for the spirits, and drives out the melancholy of past sprees.  They don’t all die, or I might have to find another occupation.  I don’t want to be discovered as a serial killer.  You can only get away with that for so long.



April 17  2014 at 6:41 PM
DC Dave said…

The pen may be stronger than the sword
But pens, like guns, can be bought,
And battles of words, like battles with guns,
Can be unfairly fought.

Those who rule know all too well
The power of the word,
And so they ration carefully
The ones that can be heard.

In our land there’s little chance
That virtue will prevail
When “truth” is a consumer good
And words are all for sale.

April 17  2014 at 6:50 PM
EZola said…

I accuse the War Office of having conducted an abominable campaign in the press in order to cover up its misdeeds and lead public opinion astray.

 April 17  2014 at 6:53 PM
DC Dave said…

If your goal is righting wrongs
You won’t get very far
By pretending things are better
Than they really are.

April 17  2014 at 7:07 PM
RDescartes said…

And I considered how one and the same man with the very same mind, were he brought up from infancy among the French or the Germans, would become different from what he would be had he always lived among the Chinese or the cannibals, and how, even down to the styles of our clothing, the same thing that pleased us ten years ago, and that perhaps will again please us ten years hence, now seems to us extravagant and ridiculous. Thus it is more custom and example that persuades us than any certain knowledge; and yet the majority opinion is worthless as a proof of truths that are at all difficult to discover, since it is much more likely that one man would have found them than a whole multitude of people. Hence I could not choose anyone whose opinions seemed to me should be preferred over those of the others, and I found myself, as it were, constrained to try to guide myself on my own.

May 3  2014 at 3:49 PM
MTwain said…

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.

May 5  2014 at 3:31 PM
CSJournal said…


The question of free speech is one of such fundamental importance to humanity that it is easy to understand the commotion which has been caused in the State of Massachusetts, by the recent riots in Haverhill. The contention that a mob with or without cause, is at liberty to usurp the prerogatives of the courts, and to substitute lynch law for official justice, constitutes, indeed, a precedent destructive of all popular liberty. The history of liberty is very largely the effort of authority to restrain license. When the human passions are roused license is always apt to come to the top.

There is no rhyme or reason in the attack of a mob. It is just as willing to smash a great invention like the spinning-jenny, for fear of the displacement of labor, as it is to stuff the mouth of a Foulon with straw. It is just this that makes the case of the mob in Haverhill so important. If its action is overlooked, if it is connived at, worse still if it is justified today, there is no length to which it may not go tomorrow, and the example set, in Haverhill, may be repeated elsewhere at the expense of the very views which the Haverhill exhibition was intended to support.

The simple fact is that the Haverhill mob outraged in the frankest and most indefensible way the common right of free speech. It is not of the slightest importance who Mr. Leyden was, what he was going to say, or what the effect of his words might be. He was entitled to speak, or he was not entitled to speak. If he was entitled to speak, no mob had any right to prevent him. If he was not entitled to speak, no mob had any right to decide the question and to enforce its own decision. In each event it outraged entirely the rights of free speech, the only difference is that in one case it outraged it rather worse than in the other.