looking at john Milton for 'covered in gold" and ran across his writing on free speech.

Its basic principle was the right and also the duty of every intelligent man as a rational being, to know the grounds and take responsibility for his beliefs and actions. Its corollary was a society and a state in which decisions are reached by open discussion, in which the sources of information are not contaminated by authority in the interest of party, and in which political unity is secured not by force but by a consensus that respects variety of opinion.[7]

Another example of its influence is in that of the United States Constitution, which includes the prohibition against prior restraint, or pre-publication censorship. This prohibition is necessary because, as Milton recognised in Areopagitica, to threaten censorship prior to publication would have a chilling effect on expression and speech, or in Milton's view, it would interfere with the pursuit of truth as it relates to a providential plan.

>>17905702

The Supreme Court of the United States has referred to Areopagitica, in interpreting the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to explain the Amendment's protections. The Court has cited Areopagitica by name in four cases. Most notably, the Court cited Areopagitica in the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to explain the inherent value of false statements.[15] The Court cited Milton to explain the dangers of prior restraint in Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago.[16] Later, Justice Douglas concurred in Eisenstadt v. Baird, citing the pamphlet to support striking down restrictions on lecturing about birth control.[17] Finally, Justice Black cited Areopagitica when he dissented from the Court's upholding of restrictions on the Communist Party of the United States against a free speech and free association challenge in Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board.[18] In each instance, Milton is cited by the Court's members to support a broad and expansive protection of free speech and association.

so check this out:

The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (c. 1641), and was composed of Privy Counsellors and common-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters. It was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people sufficiently powerful that ordinary courts might hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.

In modern times, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings, no "due process" rights to those accused, and secretive proceedings are sometimes metaphorically called "star chamber

William Blackstone, a notable English jurist writing in 1769, speculated that the name had been derived from the legal word "starr" meaning the contract or obligation to a Jew (from the Hebrew שטר (shtar) meaning 'document').

So what if being covered in gold is a contractual agreement? Nancy wearing gold is displaying her obligation. Perhaps a new contract to cover up the hammertime incident, from tanking the on the scene reporting to getting that PD MORE funding etc.

If one is covered in gold they are protected by it comes with an obligation?