What's Happening to the First Amendment?

Anyone who's even remotely interested in the erosion of First Amendment rights in this country should take a moment to read today's AP article by Associated Press Writer P. Solomon Banda entitled Balancing free speech with protest rights.

Here's my two cents worth on a related topic...

Should protesters be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US?

Before I state what I'm sure may be an unpopular opinion, let me start by saying that I have a nephew who is a Marine and I am extremely proud of him, as I am of all our men and women serving in all branches of the armed forces. I am thankful for their sacrifices and I applaud them for their courage and bravery.

However, as a person who values my freedom of speech above all else, I have to take the stance that protesters should be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US. It is simply a matter of preserving free speech and freedom of expression, which are part of what our brave men and women are fighting for.

Whether any of us agree or disagree with the point the protesters are making is completely beside the point. We must stand beside them as American citizens and vigorously defend their right to say whatever it is they want to say and make their point in whatever way they choose to express themselves, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights or break any laws. Peaceful assembly is legally protected in this country and one of the things we should be thankful for.

This does not, however, give anyone the right to resort to violence or to overtly disrupt the operation of those recruiting offices. There are fine lines between being heard and being disruptive which have to be addressed on a case by case basis.

Anyone who supports the view that protesters should not be permitted to picket military recruiting offices should take a moment to think about that position. If we allow our freedoms to be taken away one by one, it's only a matter of time until something you hold dear is under attack. How would you like to be told that you no longer have the right to write any article that supports protesters being permitted to picket military recruiting offices? How about being told that you can't write anything that doesn't show 100% support of the current political administration?

It may sound far out or left-wing, but it's not that absurd to think that we could find ourselves living in a society where we are told what we can and cannot write. That's what freedom and speech and freedom of expression protects. If we allow one form of suppression of those rights, it's only a matter of time until other forms of suppression show themselves. I, for one, value my freedom to express myself, right or wrong, popular or unpopular, too much to see anyone else lose those rights and that freedom.

Should books have ratings like movies to warn parents about inappropriate content?

What is inappropriate and who will decide? If we allow a ratings system on books, we will be accepting yet another nail in the coffin of freedom of speech in this country. It is the responsibility of parents, not the government, to decide what is and is not acceptable for their children.

Books and other forms of writing are part of the free exchange of ideas that make this country great. Our liberty relies on our ability to put forth opposing ideas so that people can decide for themselves which of those ideas make the most sense to them. We do not always agree on what ideas are "right," but we must agree that our freedom to express any idea we choose is one of the underlying foundations of a free, democratic society.

If parents are so concerned that their child could possibly read something that they feel is inappropriate, they have several options that do not include a rating system on books to make it quick and easy for them. Parenting is not quick and easy and it is not the government's responsibility to do the parenting. When parents chose to bring children into this world, they did so with the full knowledge that they would then be responsible for those children for at least 18 years. This includes being responsible for shielding their children from any influences they feel inappropriate.

Instead of a rating system, parents can take a look at what their children are reading. If they're too lazy to read the whole thing, they can skim it to make sure they feel it's appropriate. They can also suggest and provide books they have read, guiding the child toward the ideas they feel appropriate. Since small children aren't going to be reading books with a lot of big words and lofty ideas, it seems we're talking probably more about teens here. A novel approach toward parenting might be to let your children read something you don't necessarily approve of and have a mind of their own. Discuss it with them and see how they feel about it. You might just find that the child has enough sense to take a positive message from even something you feel is negative.

With Homeland Security and various other assaults on our civil liberties, a book rating system would just be one more surrender of our freedom. It's horrifying to think that some of the great classics we all grew up on could possibly be deemed inappropriate for young readers, denying them the chance to explore new and different ideas.

In a time when reading and writing skills are deteriorating rapidly, the rating system also seems to be a sure way to discourage reading and exploration of ideas and philosophical concepts. We, as a society, should encourage all our citizens to hunger for knowledge and to gain some of that knowledge by reading books of any kind, not arbitrarily narrowing the list of what is acceptable.

Many of the greatest works of American literature would more than likely be restricted to young readers by such a system. After all, couldn't "Moby Dick" be considered a little violent? There is a murder in "Of Mice and Men." Will we ban anything with the slightest bit of sexual content? What about swear words? Surely children will need to be protected from "The Holy Bible" for all of these reasons, as well.

These may seem like radical views, but these are the things you need to consider before you jump on the bandwagon of support for implementing a ratings system on books. Books have always been one of the purest forms of expression and the way the marketplace of ideas is expanded and enriched. We may not always agree with the content or the message, but we must fight to the end to protect the rights of those who write and those who read books of all kinds.

Some of the greatest lessons we have learned are from reading books filled with vile, revolting content. Think of the works of Hitler. We read these not to become like him, but to get a glimpse into the inner workings of the mind of a madman and learn important lessons on how to keep history from repeating itself. If we are forced into ignorance, we will also surely be damned to repeat the mistakes of the past.

To read more of my articles, click below:

Freedom of speech does not mean not getting offended

Freedom of speech almost certainly means that someone somewhere at sometime will be offended. This is because we are free to express any opinion, however contradictory to the norm it may be. When people discuss views, opinions and beliefs openly and freely, there is sure to be disagreement and there is always the risk of offending someone.

The offended party, fortunately, has the right to express his or her moral outrage and put forth their own opinion. That is the beauty of freedom of speech and why it must be vigorously defended. If we didn't have it, we would be forced to conform to one way of thinking approved and endorsed by one particular group, usually the government.

The risk of being offended is a small price to pay for such a basic and essential freedom. There are messages we see every day that we don't necessarily agree with, but we must stand up for the individual rights of others to put forth even those, or we run the risk of losing our right to express our own thoughts.

Think for a moment about a time when you have been most outraged about a form of expression. What did you do? Odds are, you expressed your indignation and spoke about why you disagreed with the message. You may have even thought to yourself that the party who expressed the offending message shouldn't have had the right to put it forth in the first place. If you stop to think logically about that, it would mean that you would likewise not have the right to express your opinion on the matter.

Free and open discourse is the only way that civilized, rational people can resolve problems and issues that affect everyone. It is because of contradictory ideas being expressed in the marketplace of ideas that social change ever has the opportunity to occur. When two opposing ideas are expressed, it opens up a forum or debate where others are free to give their input, often resulting in a clear resolution of the issue or even compromise. Someone is likely to propose an idea that appeals to both schools of thought and gives them some common ground on which they can agree.

Without our freedom of speech intact we may have a life of less conflict and find ourselves offended less often, but we would lose our ability to think and reason on our own. Plus, we would have to rely on someone or some group to decided what messages are appropriate and approved. There is no one in the world qualified to make those decisions for us. What we think, feel and believe must not be dictated by a single individual or group, but rather determined by our ability to sift through all the conflicting messages available and find those which which we agree and disagree.

Communist countries without freedom of speech and without a free press rely on their governments to distribute information. They are told what the government feels they need to know and are not allowed to express any opinions that do not totally agree with and support the ruling party. They may live their lives without being offended, but they are also living in the dark, their minds dulled by ignorance and controlled by a handful of people who decide what's best for them.

I would much rather stand the risk of being offended by what you have to say than to give up my right to either agree or disagree and have a frank, open discussion with you about it. Since, fortunately, we are still free to express ourselves, I was free to write this blog post. If you have been offended in any way or if you disagree, you are free to make that known by expressing yourself through freedom of speech.