Originally I started this out as a “brief” explanation to comments I received via email in which the following was stated, “My understanding of freedom of speech is that anyone can speak, print their ideas no matter how offensive and the good news is you can select who to read or listen to (buy from).” I had planned to send my “short” response back as a direct reply, “I see where, “no matter how offensive” was included as part of freedom of speech; you are not alone in that false presumption, so much for brevity of thought.
The topic “Freedom of Speech” is a double edged sword that cuts deeply into the foundations of our society’s and our so called “commonly held” beliefs. It’s a hot topic at every level of our society to include cases which now are in front of the courts. I read recently where one particular “freedom of speech” issue has some long lasting implications.
From CNN’s website Friday February 2, 2007:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb02/0,4670,ProfanityArrest,00.html
“An officer who arrested a man for cursing in a public meeting violated the man's right to free speech, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision that Montrose Township police officer Stephen Robinson had probable cause to arrest Thomas Leonard in 2002 when Leonard cursed while addressing the township board.
"It cannot be seriously contended that any reasonable peace officer, or citizen, for that matter, would believe that mild profanity while peacefully advocating a political position could constitute a criminal act," the three-judge panel wrote in Friday's decision.””
This particular case hinges on the presumption, by an extremely liberal court, that profanity has become common in our society, that it can no longer be considered objectionable and has become acceptable. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could be ranked 2nd only to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in rendering decisions that fly in the face of two hundred years of case law.
Historically it isn’t hard to understand how we have fallen to such a level as to consider profanity or pornography as being anything other than obscene. You might look up the changes that have occurred beginning with John Stuart Mill's “Harm Principle” (1978) which outlined morality by redefining social norms.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/hilde/Philhandouts/Mill-Harm_Principle(Myers).html
“...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilis(z)ed community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
Our most basic “rights”; the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as found in the Declaration of Independence are given through powers which belong to God, not government. Our nation was the first to make such a declaration of rights and tie them directly to God while forming a new nation. This followed the Magna Charta and other attempted reformations to existing governments; the idea was not new; however, it was an experiment in self government and novel to the world. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were established to define those God given rights by limiting our government’s ability to infringe upon those rights; not as some claim, to explain those rights which our government has seen fit to permit the individual citizen.
The Harm Principle turned upside down how the law interpreted injury through expression, such as so called freedom of speech, to include any and all expressions regardless of content. Our Supreme Court has fallen into this philosophy and this has become the standard by which solipsism or the destruction of common held interpretation of long standing principles became possible. It creates a society of one in which nothing is dependent on society, one in which reality is decided daily and subject to revision based solely on that individual’s desires or needs; in a nut shell, the end of the rule of law.
http://tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/2005/05/author-of-liberty.html
I have also written about how absurd it is to presume that God would provide our founding fathers with divine inspiration to pen our most precious documents; The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to establish a nation in which pure doctrine could be established and then expect those documents to presuppose that God has included anything in those documents which would or could be in direct conflict with his expressed commandments. (How’s that for a run on sentence?) Men have found ways to rationalize corruption; you might be familiar with the scriptural reference from Isaiah, “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
http://tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/2007/01/right-to-peacefully-assemble.html
The current level of moral decay has gotten us to a point where the law of the land is dependent on whatever the highest court says it is, that being the Supreme Court. I have in the past referred to an article in the Meridian Magazine and an interview with Robert Bork.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/031119bork.html
Unfortunately the elitist status which has been granted those 9 unelected overseers has created a schism which ought not to exist, that they can determine morality rather than review constitutional law means that they now believe themselves to be above the populous for whom they serve, gods if you will. They have created constitutional rights which do not and never were in the constitution such as the right to privacy, the right to abortion and other current popular notions not found in the document, all in the name of political expediency. Laws which protected morality have come under a constant barrage from the godless; laws which covered profanity, pornography and obscenity have been struck down in the name of “freedom of speech”.
Well, freedom of speech never included the right to offend your neighbor’s ear in public, no different than slapping someone in the face or spitting on them. Such actions have historically been considered a form of assault; that is until recent times. No one will argue that it’s against the law to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater; however, some feel that it is perfectly within the scope of individual freedoms to offend, strike that, to express any manner of profanity as if such expression was acceptable no different than “please” or “thank you”.
My reference to Isaiah stands and such profanities are and should continue to be against the law in public. Granted, most popular movies and television shows would have to be thrown in the trash; but they are only the tip of the ice berg when it comes to how depraved our society has become.
The article to which I voiced my complaint regarding pedophilia being objectionable has to do with a known pervert who continues to prey on the innocents in our society, regardless of the Canadian law which claims that sex with a 14 year old does not constitute any violation of law. His having published a book through a company in direct affiliation with Amazon.com and then having Amazon.com act as his agent to distribute such depravity under the recently acquired rulings that support such deviant behavior as expressions covered by free speech only underscores what I have stated.
http://tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/2007/02/amazoncom-pedophilia-is-objectionable.html
The self imposed censorship that Amazon.com should use, that which in former days would have been accepted as reasonable by those who wish to salvage some semblance of morality, has been set aside in order to obtain either notoriety among those with little or no moral foundation or to exact a few more dollars to an already profitable venture. The smut dealers, the hole in the wall outlets which have always existed sell XXX material to the dregs of society, should not and do not represent society as a whole. The fact that a mainstream distribution outlet such as Amazon.com has elected to sink to such levels of depravity, all in the name of freedom of speech or freedom of choice; which I have shown to be nothing but self centered interest in direct opposition to anything which God intended when such freedoms were provided to men. Amazon.com’s policy to provide obscene material on demand stands as a declaration that they have no morals or intent to uphold the standards of the community.
No comments:
Post a Comment