Introduction: The Erosion of the Right of Self-Defense
The right to defend one’s home against unlawful intrusion is a foundational principle of American liberty. It is deeply embedded in the common law tradition. The axiom “a man’s home is his castle” is not a mere phrase. It is a legal and philosophical declaration of personal sovereignty and the right to self-preservation.¹
Today, this fundamental right faces an unprecedented erosion on two converging fronts.
First, a fractured legal landscape of inconsistent state self-defense laws creates perilous uncertainty. The right to protect one’s home is a matter of geography, robustly affirmed in one state and dangerously constrained in the next.² The second front is the digital public square, dominated by global technology platforms. These private entities enforce their own governance through rigid, automated content moderation. These systems lack situational awareness. They are incapable of distinguishing between a statement of lawful defensive intent and an unlawful threat of aggression.³
This environment creates a “digital panopticon,” a state of constant surveillance by private entities.⁴ Here, a citizen who declares their resolve to defend their home can be censored, de-platformed, and branded as a purveyor of violence. This punishes the expression of a constitutional right and misrepresents patriots as aggressors.⁵
This report argues that the failure to enact a uniform, robust Castle Doctrine, combined with the rise of censorious and context-blind content moderation, constitutes a dual-front assault on the fundamental right of self-defense. This assault leaves patriots legally and socially vulnerable for asserting their constitutional rights.
This analysis will demonstrate how the digital sphere amplifies legal vulnerability. It creates a profound disconnect between a citizen’s constitutional mindset and the arbitrary rules of corporate platforms. The report will dissect the legal chaos of self-defense laws and then ground the right in its constitutional context. It will analyze modern threats that necessitate a defensive posture and deconstruct the failures of content moderation that misinterpret it. Finally, it will examine the infringement of Second Amendment rights for marijuana users before concluding with a call for comprehensive reform.
(more…)