“The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible. ”
—Because sometimes it needs restating.
(I wrote about why I’ll fight to defend unpleasant,uncomfortable or icky speech and images in my journal over at
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
—I’m not one to bust out The Constitution/Bill of Rights as the be all end all but it seems so damned appropriate right now.
-Joe
“Calling people names is bad, but calling people names based on your own invented calumny is the textbook definition of slander. The First Amendment does not protect you from that, nor should it. Even on an issue of public debate, and even if the victim is a public figure, as Ms. Fluke was here, 'fair comment' is not a defense if you made up the central fact, and the central fact is wrong and is damaging and if your intent was to injure. I’m no lawyer, but as I see it: Check, check, check, check. ”
—Gene Weingarten, on why Sandra Fluke should probably sue Rush Limbaugh.
So, you don't agree with Occupy Wall Street
by Aaron Baldwin | Activate the Mechanism!
For whatever reason, you don’t agree with the Occupy Wall Street protests, and that’s fine, you have a right not to, I may not agree with your reasons why, but that’s not what this is about.
First, I want to put this out there, this was a reply to an article about the eviction of the protesters from Zuccotti Park;
If you don’t agree with the protesters, you might have a good chuckle over it, stupid hippies, right? Maybe you’re a bit more rational than this guy about it. They broke the rules and got kicked out, they don’t even know what they’re protesting anyway. They’re all just a bunch of hippies, anarchists, anti-capitalists, or poor people looking for free food.
It doesn’t really matter.
What does matter is these are American citizens who are not happy with things the way they are for whatever reason. You may not agree with them, but that’s what is supposed to be great about our country.
Lets look at the first Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America;
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
These people are practicing their rights under The Constitution.
They have grievances, they are peacefully assembling. The overwhelming amount of force used by the New York Police Department yesterday and the Oakland Police Department earlier were direct attacks on free speech, and I don’t want to hear any crap about permits. The entire deal with permits are a legal way to circumvent the first amendment, besides, the occupiers had been there for nearly two months, but I’m getting off point.
It saddens me to see fellow Americans turning a blind eye to what is going on here, or even worse, in some cases even cheering it.
Yesterday I came across an article entitled, “10 Signs the U.S, is Becoming a Third World Country”, this exert from reason number five really stood out to me;
The rise of a militarized police state is a hallmark of most Third World countries, particularly in times of rapid economic collapse. America’s declaration of the War on Terror has created a constant threat to National Security that has allowed for the military to be deployed on American soil. Building upon the War on Drugs, this has created a fusion between the military and local police, where military-grade weapons and tactics are being used against American citizens in a cascade of violent confrontations over non-violent offenses.
So, the NYPD deployed riot police, and that in it’s self is fine. They should be around in case the situation gets out of hand and a riot does indeed start. They are supposed to be there for our safety.
The problem is, they are not there for our safety any more, there have been confirmed reports that the FBI and The Department of Homeland Security have made coordinated efforts to disperse the protests.
Now, stop for a second and think about what is going on here. A very large group of people around the country are not happy with the state of things, they are gathering in groups to air these grievances and draw attention to them.
The government is turning the tools of anti-terrorism against it’s own citizens, more or less to shut them up.
This is not what freedom looks like, in fact, it looks like the first steps in becoming a police state.
You may think the occupiers are stupid, annoying, spoiled, hippies, whatever, but the heart of this is they have every right to protest as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The government is trying to use militarized tactics to shut them up.
In my honest opinion, it doesn’t matter if you agree with the protesters’s agenda or not, but why cheer when American citizens are trying to be silenced by their government this way?
This is a VERY bad thing for all of us, not just the “stupid hippie” protesters.
Freedom of Speech and Opinions: A Primer
I’m surprised that this is something that has to be done, but the more I look on social media websites like Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook, the more I see a need for it, which is astonishing in and of itself. We all cover the Constitution and Bill of Rights in high school, probably even earlier. We memorize the preamble, we go over the amendments, and we constantly refer to different ones as needed in conversation. How many times have you asked someone a question and they say “I plead the fifth”? How many times have you turned on the news, seen someone talking about gun laws, and then heard the rallying cry of the second amendment? How many times have you seen or heard someone say something controversial and then, when criticized, they say it’s their first amendment right to free speech?
Freedom of speech seems to be the rallying cry of anyone with an opinion who doesn’t want to be criticized for it. It also seems to be the rallying cry of people supporting said opinions, or at least their right to say them. And, this is where I see a need for this primer.
Yes, people can have opinions, and they should always be allowed a forum to express those opinions. However, I’m sick and tired of people acting like opinions can’t be wrong. Yes, they very well can. I’ll say that again in case people don’t understand: yes, opinions can be wrong. I know this probably fills the less intelligent and socially aware people with a deep sense of anxiety, but that’s okay. You should be anxious! You’ll actually have to respond to criticism and accept the possibility that you’re wrong, which is, I know, scandalous.
“No social principle in the world is more foolish and dangerous than the rapidly rising notion that hurtful words and ideas are a form of violence or torture (e.g. "harassment") and that their perpetrators should be treated accordingly. That notion leads to the criminalization of criticism and the empowerment of authorities to regulate it. The new sensitivity is the old authoritarianism in disguise, and it is just as noxious.”
—Jonathan Rauch-Kindly Inquisitors“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
—The First Amendment of the United States Constitution
I’ll just leave this here.
So what I heard about the censorship thing.
It passed unanimously in the committee of 19 senators this morning. This means nothing though, it still has a long way to go. It has to go through senate then congress, and then be verified by the President. It can be amended countless times in between then and now… and it’s an obvious violation of the First Amendment which hopefully won’t fly with Congress.. or the President if it gets that far. The President wouldn’t approve though… I mean doesn’t the White House have a Tumblr?
of an unpopular opinion
I strongly disagree with the messenger attacks against Piers Morgan for his comment related to crazy Kirk.
I agree with Morgan. I too believe Cameron was “BRAVE” to speak his crazy mind. He’s clinging to a fringe belief system so far removed from evolved mankind and the world in general. He has to feel like his higher power is testing him.
Last time I checked everyone has a right to speak their mind. That’s what we say each time someone tries to shut us up, right?
Hate on Kirk Cameron because he lives in a doomsday, hate-filled, paranoid, bubble.
Hate on Piers Morgan for being talentless and without spine.
Don’t hate on the First Amendment, that’s the one which holds our individual right to speak about any fucking thing we want.
Exception, treason. And maybe some TSA related stuff.
Generally we’re well protected in our speech.
That from an an old guard, gay lady.
