Brushfire of Freedom
The Armory
Note: Originally published at Brushfire Sparks on March 24, 2009.
“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.”
In addition to the right to a free expression of religion, the Founders felt it necessary to protect the freedom of speech. It should be noted that the text of the amendment does not specify what type of speech. It is not a freedom of liberal speech or approved speech or even militant speech. It states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...period. It is not a protection of the freedom of expression, but the freedom to speak your mind no matter the subject, no matter who might be offended.
Our freedom of speech has been rather insidiously eroded through several methods of attack. Oddly, the same people who fight so diligently to protect the right of Larry Flint to publish and post pornography are offended at commentary by Don Imus and Sean Hannity. These “PC Police” attack free speech by declaring commentary of which they do not approve to be “hate speech”. The hate speech argument states that individuals do not have the right to speak their mind if another individual might at some point become offended by the comment. In the words of the immortal Dr. Johnny Fever, “Booger”.
It is quite possible, even highly probable, that someone that stumbles across the Brushfire site will find something offensive. They might even find the commentary “hateful”. It is this labeling of speech by the politically correct that has so stifled our political discourse. By identifying commentary as “offensive” and demanding that this commentary be silenced, we have enabled those who would deprive us of our basic right to free speech. We have given them a tool that they have used to beat back those who might oppose their opinions. They have categorized words like “fail” and “discrimination” as non-cooperative, evil terms that they say define the person and not their specific views of that person. Then they state that because these terms offend someone, the individual who uttered them should be silenced, and the words stricken from the record. How is this supporting free speech?
If you wanted to see true free speech in 2008, you needed only go to any of the “Bush is an Idiot” web sites (there were several) to see inane and often vulgar commentary on the policies and lifestyle of then-President Bush. Yet that is protected speech under the first amendment. Offensive? Yes, to many it was but that is not the point. The Founders knew that for this nation to survive in the form they had devised, a free and open discourse was not only necessary but a key stone.
Want to see a restriction of free speech? You should have tried to post negative comments on the Obama site during the same campaign. When a government in power stifles or attempts to stifle the voice of its opposition, it has in fact eliminated the freedom of speech for all persons of that nation. Look south to Venezuela and you will see that the first target of the Socialist dictator Chavez was to invade, close, and destroy the media outlets that opposed his positions. Free speech is second only to freedom of religion in the minds of our founders. Free speech is the voice of the nation, it fuels discourse, debate, and sometimes decisions. The freedom of speech is key to the protection of the liberties of this nation.
So why should you be concerned about this protected right? First, because it is under attack by the current ruling party (yes, I meant to say ruling). They are attempting to manipulate ownership, content, and regulation of media outlets to silence those that oppose them. Yet these same people have defended their own dissension during the Iraq war. They were outspoken against the policies of the President, much as others are now. Since that is the case, the only rational conclusion regarding their current efforts to “manage” the media is that they wish to stifle the opposition. They have taken a page from the Socialist handbook and are attempting to silence your voice. The loss of free speech for even one person in this nation is an overt abandonment of that freedom outlined in the first amendment. It is a freedom we must defend at all costs, before the voice of this nation, like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Chavezian Venezuela, is permanently silenced.
Contact Ramarious Brushfire Home
Copyright 2009. The published content is the sole property of the author. Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.