The First Amendment - Part Two

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“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.”

Yesterday we covered the freedom of religion, or at least what it has become after the reinterpretation of it by the courts after atheist and leftist tinkerers had finished their work. Today we will address the second clause of the first amendment.“Congress shall make no law ……. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

Some would argue that logical restrictions of free speech are warranted in some cases because the content of that speech is abrasive, intolerant or even violent. We’ve all heard that recently charged in the world of talk radio or political television where a statement made by a commentator is offensive or even hateful. Almost immediately, those claiming to be offended by those statements send out the rally cry to eliminate this voice from the airwaves. I’m sorry, but people will always be offended by one thing or another and that is not a compelling reason to restrict the first amendment. There is however, an effective protection already available to those that are easily offended by these views. It’s called personal responsibility. The last time I looked none of these personalities had a captive audience that is forcibly subjected to their programs. If you don’t like what is being said…don’t listen to it, don’t watch it and for heaven’s sake, don’t buy it. Whew! That was easy!

I will be the first to admit that some of those voices are harsh and intolerant; some are ignorant and some are just plain vicious. Then there are others that are being targeted and ridiculed not because they were overtly cruel in the expression of their ideas but rather because the ideas themselves fundamentally differ from those that would seek to silence them. No matter how conscious I am of keeping my writings centered on the truth and how much I strive to invite rational discussion on these issues to promote a healthy understanding between opposing views, there are some that are so disinterested in the word, that they resort to personal attacks and display a sincere and passionate desire to silence me as well. Believe it or not, I support their right to speak freely too…I simply choose to ignore it.

The founding fathers were well aware of the intricacies of free speech and knew that some would promote dissent and even hatred. Even still, they recognized that the freedom to express ones thoughts and ideas in both spoken and printed form was essential to the well being of the Republic. On November 23, 1787, James Madison addressed these concerns in a letter written to the people of New York, which was then the seat of the U.S. Government. This letter is part of a collection of writings know as the Federalist Papers. The Federalist papers provide clear insight as to the thought and intentions of the men that created our Constitution and the Federal Government as we know it. Mr. Madison said…“It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

I know that eighteenth century English is a bit hard to follow at times but the essence of his argument was that to eliminate liberty, including the freedom of speech, because it may feed anger would be similar to eliminating air because it may feed fire. The former would suffocate the Republic to prevent anger while the latter would suffocate life to prevent fire. And yet, we still have people that see fit to advocate just that; the suffocation of the Republic to quell dissent. Mark Lloyd, appointed by Mr. Obama as the Chief Diversity Officer, a newly created position in the FCC says that “…freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction…”

Mr. Lloyd is currently driving a program that will, if allowed to be enacted, effectively shut down privately owned radio and television stations that do not pass his “diversity equation” by requiring fees (let’s just call it what it is, a conservative talk tax) equal to 100% of their operating budget. In the interest of fairness and diversity, those fees will be used to fund public broadcasting. Public broadcasting, whose programming incidentally, supports the Obama administration’s agenda.

Stations that cannot pay the fee will have their broadcast license withdrawn and sold to minority interests that better reflect his idea of diversity. My fear is that his idea of diversity is actually code for programming that is ironically, identical to that of public broadcasting.

Well if that is the new direction of the FCC, then of course the Constitutional protections of free speech and a free press would be a distraction. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Lloyd, they may be a distraction but they are also protected under the word of law and would pose a constitutional quagmire for this Presidency if people in his administration openly sought to erode that protection.

Freedom of the press possesses the same protections under the Constitution and for the same reasons. Fortunately for the press, there is no government equivalent to the FCC so they don’t suffer the same degree of interference that the broadcast media does. Besides, the majority of main stream newspapers overwhelmingly support the Obama administration and therefore, the content in these publications is effectively sterilized before it is printed. I would submit that if the press were actually hostile to this administration that there would be plans to bring the printed press under the guidance of Mr. Lloyd as well.

It is exceedingly hard to find a print paper that contains views that contain a diverse and broad spectrum of views which is why I posted that quote by Abbott Joseph Liebling on the picture that adorns the top of this page. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”. If you want diversity in the press, don’t shut them down, get your own press and compete for the hearts and soul of the American people. That is the fair way; the American way; the Constitutional way.

Film falls under this as well as a medium of expression. We know that a major portion of the Hollywood elite also support the President. The overwhelming majority of documentary and political films are highly critical of conservative ideals and label libertarians as lunatics however, they are vocally supportive of the progressive movement. Why is it that the demands for a fair and diverse representation of opposing views is not being thrust upon film and entertainment industry as fervently as it is in the broadcast media? After all, there is an agency for that. Once again, the majority of Hollywood and their works merge nicely with the agenda of this administration so that is obviously diverse enough to gain a pass from the watchful eye of government. Besides, Hollywood guards themselves far more carefully that government ever could.

Ron Silver was a well known film actor as well as a progressive and liberal activist. He starred in many films and television programs and had a bright future awaiting him in the industry. That was until he was so enraged by the terror attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 that he became a very vocal supporter of President Bush and of the war to bring those responsible to justice. That did not fit the Hollywood mold and the powers that be saw to it that he rarely, if ever worked again. His exclusion from film continued right up to the time of his death.

The internet is now under assault because of the wide spread use of this forum for those who wish to be heard. Most would not take the time if the news reported actual news instead of airing hour long editorial pieces. No one would waste their time on blogs, web pages and web news if the press would fulfill their obligation to accurately and fairly report the unfiltered truth. Since the profusion of people that believe this nation is in danger have taken to the internet to spread the word, that has become a threat similar to that on broadcast networks. New legislation is being drafted that would give the President the authority to deny internet traffic, even private and business internet traffic, in the event of a national crisis.

Well since this administration has assumed the reigns of government how many crisis’s have already been announced in an attempt to fast track legislation in keeping with the President’s agenda? Let’s see….there was the subprime mortgage crisis, the climate crisis, the healthcare crisis, the credit crisis, the banking crisis…on and on. Is it far fetched to assume that if internet journalists and bloggers are impeding the President’s progress in healthcare or the climate by causing doubt in the minds of Americans, could that not be viewed as a “national crisis” all by itself?

No, the founding fathers recognized that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were of paramount importance to the Republic and are part of the natural right that all men possessed with or without government consent. We do not need government control of free speech because we have already insured that hand in hand with the freedom of speech there is a responsibility that has tangible and effective enforcements.

If the misuse of your free speech rights has denied a person any one of their basic civil rights then there are legal and civil consequences for that. If you yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater there are legal and civil consequences for that as well, especially if there are injuries. If you slander someone with false accusations there are legal and civil consequences for that too. It seems like the people and the States themselves have done a pretty good job in making sure people use this freedom wisely without the heavy handed oversight of the Federal Government which once again, proves the genius and foresight of those amazing crafters of the Constitution.

Please come back tomorrow for part three of the First Amendment…Freedom of Assembly

Paul

Palin calls for unity at Tea Party Convention

Sarah Palin made her much anticipated speech before the First National Tea Party Convention in Nashville Tennessee on Friday night. For the people that are familiar with Ms. Palin’s credentials, her message contained few surprises but for those that were only exposed to the highly critical coverage of the Tea Party movement through a mostly Liberal press, viewing her speech may have given them their first real look at the core values of this growing wave of Conservative Constitutionalism. Of course, that is assuming they took the time to watch it in its entirety and did not foolishly rely on the carefully selected snippets and caustic analysis of the Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermanns of the world.

The main focus of her speech noted the disparity in the vision that the American people have for the future of the United States compared to the agenda of the current body politic. While the main focus of the Sunday morning “talking heads” was the sharp criticism she had regarding the direction the President has taken our country in the past year, Palin’s criticisms were by no means, limited to one man or even to one Party. She possesses something that has been long lost in Washington; a keen understanding of the factual definition of a Federal system of government. Palin recognizes the root cause of the anger on which the Tea Party movement was founded and she is one of the few political people that have validated the widespread disdain for the Washington machine that has thwarted that rule of law and ignored the will of the governed.

The founders intended to form a union of sovereign states, each possessing the power of self determination and all guided by a Constitution of laws that were mutually agreed upon. The States voluntarily entered into this union and a Federal Government was established to perform the functions of government that would unify the States, provide for the common defense and establish a uniform relationship between the “united” States and foreign governments. The Constitution granted limited powers to the Federal government and only to the degree required for the Federal government to fulfill the duties designated to it under the Constitution. All other powers were to be retained, entirely, by the States and their citizens.

While Sarah Palin did not speak of the political history that mutated the Federal government into this insatiable leviathan, she apparently understands that the government has criminally deviated from these Constitutional directives and has been on a slow, methodical march to usurp State Power under some mystical authority derived from a bastardization of judicial and legislative policy. Palin noted the historical failure of the Federal government to provide even basic services without an enormity of waste and the blatant insensitivity to the crisis’s they have themselves created for main street America while serving the interests of unions, friends and political allies.

Palin spoke quite eloquently of recent Federal blunders and abuses of the Federal Government: the ineptitude of Federal bureaucrats that have not only failed to accurately track the effects the Stimulus bill had on job creation but in fact, have no idea where billions in Stimulus funds have even gone; citing money spent in dozens of Congressional districts that do not exist; the overreach of Congress by assuming authority it does not have to interfere in private corporations, take over auto makers and force its vision of healthcare reform on an unwilling nation; the ignorance of a Justice Department that grants Constitutional rights to foreign combatants that are hell bent on the destruction of America and the arrogance of a President that refuses to hear the voice of the people and still plans to proceed with an agenda that we keep telling him over and over that we do not want. I’m sure if she presented a full list of the past year’s failures, she could have easily spoken for hours but that was not the point of this convention or of her speech.

The main point of her speech was in recognition of the composition of the Tea Party movement itself. While the opposition to Washington has unified a great number of people, those people do have a wide and varied list of concerns that the individual members consider important. The difference in those interests could spell trouble within the movement unless there is a greater goal in mind and Palin tried to narrow the focus of the movement towards a goal they can all agree on. While born out of negativity, she challenged the conference attendees to focus on their hopes for the future. Palin invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan on the anniversary of his birth and reminded the audience of Reagan’s legacy.

Reagan had also inherited a nation in recession and could very well have taken the low road of blaming Jimmy Carter for the country’s financial difficulties but instead, he forged forward with his vision of restoring prosperity by enacting enormous tax cuts; cuts that even his critics admit, did bring a tripling of revenues to the treasury. Of course the recovery could have been far greater if it were not for the last great battle of the cold war that spawned massive increases in military spending and the TEFRA act of 1986, an act that would severely curtail the scope of deductions business could claim as exemptions. While opposed to TEFRA, Reagan was forced to accept this or risk losing his entire tax reduction package. The end result was that TEFRA limited the amount of money that business would invest in itself and in new employees but the cuts did have a spectacular effect on the economy despite that limiting factor.

The important part of Reagan’s legacy was in what his leadership provided for the spirit of America. In what seemed like a single moment, Reagan swept away the depression of Viet Nam, the shame of Nixon’s resignation, the hopelessness of the Ford and Carter economies and the indignity of Iran’s assault on our embassy and our pride. Moments after his inauguration, Reagan stood before the crowd and announced that the American hostages held in Iran for 444 days, had been released and had already crossed into international air space. Iran knew what Libya, the PLO, Hamas and other terror networks and nations would soon learn the hard way; Reagan would not yield to bullies, would not negotiate with terror and would bear any expense to enforce justice anywhere in the world. In that sense, Ronald Reagan truly was the embodiment of hope in America, not the half-hearted campaign rhetoric of a junior Senator whose only real experience in government was how to spend taxpayer money at the local level.

Former Governor Palin reminded people that conservatives united to support Reagan and that support transcended party affiliation. She cautioned the audience and the Tea Party movement in general, not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by letting that unity elude them now. The greatest strength of the movement is that it is focused on the Constitution and not on any one person. That can also be its greatest weakness if this sea of individuals allows the movement to splinter. There is a larger game afoot and people must not let one issue or another confuse the bigger picture of restoring the democratic republic based on the ideals clearly defined in the Constitution. Indeed, our future lies in the past and if we fail to look beyond minor details or become fixated on the foibles of some very human candidates, the Progressives in Congress may win by default as our votes are cast to the four winds. The Tea Party should not become a third party but rather, their future lies in shaping the electoral process as an advocate; lobbyist, if you will, for the Constitution and for the sovereignty of the States.

In a question and answer session after the speech, Palin noted that there are many Conservative Democrats, otherwise known as Reagan Democrats that are equally disenchanted with the direction of Washington. While she sincerely hopes that the Republican Party finds their Conservative roots so they can gain the trust of the Tea Party rather than compete with them, she also hopes that the Tea Party can remain focused on issues and not ideology because that is what is needed to attract and retain the Conservative factions within the Democratic and Independent Parties.

The time for unity is now and the Progressives are already trying to divide the Republican Party between Conservatives and Moderates and are attempting to isolate the Tea Party entirely. We must remain strong, we must remain focused and we must remain united. Remember, one of the first flags flown at the time of the revolution was that of a dismembered snake emblazoned with the words “Unite or Die”. It would do us well to fly that flag again.

Paul

Healthcare Reform and the Constitution

About the only thing that the Democrats and the President have said about the Healthcare Bill that isn’t an outright lie is that it is comprehensive. In fact, that is probably understated since this will give our Federal government unprecedented control over every facet of health, including some very personal decisions.

The bill contains a tax on sugary beverages since sugary beverages have been deemed bad for you. Anything bad for you will raise healthcare costs and this bill gives the government the authority to regulate anything that will affect your health. When government began its crusade to steer behavior under what is widely known know as a “sin” tax on cigarettes, I warned that this was only the beginning. No one argues that cigarettes are bad for one’s health but the same argument can be made for nearly the entire fast food industry. As cigarette taxes climb and people quit smoking, the number of cigarette related illnesses will also decline. When illness related to obesity ranks as the number one cause of death in the United States, the same argument will be used to regulate that behavior too.

We all know the number play in Washington. We saw it all through the debate as some figures were issued in real numbers and some were issued as percentages, whichever made the case for healthcare reform stronger. The industry profits for healthcare insurance were given in real dollars since the amount appeared staggering. Even though the industry-wide profits were stated in the hundreds of billions of dollars, the fact is it represented an industry profit of only two percent. See how that works? Two percent wouldn’t make the people paying high insurance premiums angry but hundreds of billions of dollars would.

Choosing the right set of numbers, the Liberal think tanks can now establish a cause to intervene in our lives. The hundreds of billions of dollars that cheeseburger and fries sap from the health insurance industry is certainly enough to warrant government regulation and that regulation will come in the form of an additional tax. Part of the healthcare bill also requires restaurants to list the caloric content of their meal items. How convenient! That would give us an easy factor by which we can calculate a “progressive” tax on foods that cause obesity. Of course, like any tax it will probably start with some thing barely noticeable as in the sugary beverage tax which was to be one penny per ounce, the last time I looked. But as the paradigm shifts and obesity overtakes cigarettes as the number one killer in the US, they will just have to raise unhealthy food taxes in order to save lives.

Why there are all sorts of things that contribute to skyrocketing healthcare costs; things that progressives would love to eliminate but that the Constitution has prevented until now. Several cities have an incredible amount of healthcare money devoted to treating the victims of weapons related crimes. Using the EPA’s recent announcement that they will being regulating CO2 emissions without Congressional approval using the existing Clean Air Act as a guide, is it really beyond the scope of possibility that our Second Amendment Rights could vanish as a regulatory casualty of controlling healthcare costs? Of course the number crunchers would site the dollar and cents cost for that care as the justification and just ignore the facts that gun related crime is the highest in cities that already possess the harshest gun laws in the nation or that crimes committed with lawfully obtained and owned weapons is less than one half of one percent of all weapons related crimes.

What other rights could be swept away by this bill? Well, we didn’t have to wait for the passage of the bill for our right to free speech to be assaulted. Humana advised its customers about the potential loss of Medicare Advantage under the Healthcare Bill and the White House immediately attacked, threatening legal action even though Medicare advantage was indeed, on the chopping block. Where Humana is concerned, the White House acted with total disregard to the Supreme Court ruling that Corporations are considered individuals where Constitutional protections, including the First Amendment right to Free Speech is concerned. If that wasn't enough, the White House went as far as to establish an Orwellian e-mail account so individuals could report anyone that was spreading lies (opposing information) about the healthcare bill. The apparent message was that Big Brother is indeed watching. Of course that site was dismantled when there was an outcry over this clear abuse of power and the danger it represented.

How about our right to privacy? The administration claims that medical records will be specially secured and kept from prying eyes; really? When Social Security was enacted opponents railed against the loss of privacy and again, the government issued assurances that our privacy would be protected. Social Security numbers were never supposed to be used as a means of identification and the original cards were issued with the statement “For Social Security Purposes, Not for Identification” printed on the face of the card to allay those fears.

So what do we have now? Our Social Security number became our primary form of identification and is needed to secure employment, pay taxes and even to open a bank account. It is the only piece of identity needed in conjunction with your name to get a comprehensive credit report containing all of your financial dealings and as such, has become the primary instrument used by thieves to steal your identity and do irreparable harm to your credit and good name. Considering that the Federal government, with all of the technology and computerization available to them today, could not accurately track the stimulus expenditures with even a modest degree of accuracy, how could we believe that they can secure our medical records any better than they did our Social Security information?

The privacy issue may be further impinged if the final bill contains the same provisions for community based services that were in the House Bill. Under that, community base health providers would come to your home to offer solutions and advice on everything from child rearing to care for the elderly. We already know from past experience that once the government gets a toe in the door, it isn’t long before the whole proverbial 600 lb gorilla is in the living room.

Progressives may be for the most part, a Godless bunch while some Democrats like Ben Nelson are comfortable with placing their religious beliefs and morals on the same auction block with their votes; but American’s are a faithful people with 85% professing belief in one religion or another. The use of public funds for abortion, for many of these people, places them at odds with their faith. Intellectually, there is no difference in using their taxes to pay for abortion as it would be for them to pay for it themselves and that is something their conscience will not allow. Even soldiers have the ability to opt out of fighting in a war if they have a strong and historically verifiable religious objection. Those that object to abortion on religious grounds have no such “opt-out” provision available to them where taxes are concerned. Since tax money all goes into the same pot, if abortion is funded by any provision of the bill no one can offer a reasonable assurance that their money will not eventually end up funding abortion.

Let’s not forget that this is the first time the Federal government has levied a tax on us just because we are alive. The mandate that we purchase health care insurance or else, is as unconstitutional as it gets. There are those that say it’s no different than the mandate to have car insurance, but that mandate only applies if you choose to drive a car. Those that do not own a car are not required to have auto insurance to drive the costs down for those that do. Also, this healthcare bill is not actually insurance, but rather a whole life, cradle to grave intrusion on your life and liberty. It is pre-paid medical care and that is where the outrageous expense comes from. Do you file an insurance claim at every oil change or fill up? Does your auto insurance cover consumable items like brake pads and wiper blades? Does auto insurance cover pre-existent conditions or allow high risk drivers to purchase a low cost policy? No, the comparison to auto insurance is idiotic at best and only confirms the irrational lengths at which these people will go to sell you on this miserable idea.

Paul

The First Amendment, Part Two

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“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.”

Yesterday we covered the freedom of religion, or at least what it has become after the reinterpretation of it by the courts after atheist and leftist tinkerers had finished their work. Today we will address the second clause of the first amendment.

“Congress shall make no law ……. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

Some would argue that logical restrictions of free speech are warranted in some cases because the content of that speech is abrasive, intolerant or even violent. We’ve all heard that recently charged in the world of talk radio or political television where a statement made by a commentator is offensive or even hateful. Almost immediately, those claiming to be offended by those statements send out the rally cry to eliminate this voice from the airwaves. I’m sorry, but people will always be offended by one thing or another and that is not a compelling reason to restrict the first amendment. There is however, an effective protection already available to those that are easily offended by these views. It’s called personal responsibility. The last time I looked none of these personalities had a captive audience that is forcibly subjected to their programs. If you don’t like what is being said…don’t listen to it, don’t watch it and for heaven’s sake, don’t buy it. Whew! That was easy!

I will be the first to admit that some of those voices are harsh and intolerant; some are ignorant and some are just plain vicious. Then there are others that are being targeted and ridiculed not because they were overtly cruel in the expression of their ideas but rather because the ideas themselves fundamentally differ from those that would seek to silence them. No matter how conscious I am of keeping my writings centered on the truth and how much I strive to invite rational discussion on these issues to promote a healthy understanding between opposing views, there are some that are so disinterested in the word, that they resort to personal attacks and display a sincere and passionate desire to silence me as well. Believe it or not, I support their right to speak freely too…I simply choose to ignore it.

The founding fathers were well aware of the intricacies of free speech and knew that some would promote dissent and even hatred. Even still, they recognized that the freedom to express ones thoughts and ideas in both spoken and printed form was essential to the well being of the Republic. On November 23, 1787, James Madison addressed these concerns in a letter written to the people of New York, which was then the seat of the U.S. Government. This letter is part of a collection of writings know as the Federalist Papers. The Federalist papers provide clear insight as to the thought and intentions of the men that created our Constitution and the Federal Government as we know it. Mr. Madison said…

“It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

I know that eighteenth century English is a bit hard to follow at times but the essence of his argument was that to eliminate liberty, including the freedom of speech, because it may feed anger would be similar to eliminating air because it may feed fire. The former would suffocate the Republic to prevent anger while the latter would suffocate life to prevent fire. And yet, we still have people that see fit to advocate just that; the suffocation of the Republic to quell dissent. Mark Lloyd, appointed by Mr. Obama as the Chief Diversity Officer, a newly created position in the FCC says that “…freedom of speech and of the press has become a distraction…”

Mr. Lloyd is currently driving a program that will, if allowed to be enacted, effectively shut down privately owned radio and television stations that do not pass his “diversity equation” by requiring fees (let’s just call it what it is, a conservative talk tax) equal to 100% of their operating budget. In the interest of fairness and diversity, those fees will be used to fund public broadcasting. Public broadcasting, whose programming incidentally, supports the Obama administration’s agenda.

Stations that cannot pay the fee will have their broadcast license withdrawn and sold to minority interests that better reflect his idea of diversity. My fear is that his idea of diversity is actually code for programming that is ironically, identical to that of public broadcasting.

Well if that is the new direction of the FCC, then of course the Constitutional protections of free speech and a free press would be a distraction. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Lloyd, they may be a distraction but they are also protected under the word of law and would pose a constitutional quagmire for this Presidency if people in his administration openly sought to erode that protection.

Freedom of the press possesses the same protections under the Constitution and for the same reasons. Fortunately for the press, there is no government equivalent to the FCC so they don’t suffer the same degree of interference that the broadcast media does. Besides, the majority of main stream newspapers overwhelmingly support the Obama administration and therefore, the content in these publications is effectively sterilized before it is printed. I would submit that if the press were actually hostile to this administration that there would be plans to bring the printed press under the guidance of Mr. Lloyd as well.

It is exceedingly hard to find a print paper that contains views that contain a diverse and broad spectrum of views which is why I posted that quote by Abbott Joseph Liebling on the picture that adorns the top of this page. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”. If you want diversity in the press, don’t shut them down, get your own press and compete for the hearts and soul of the American people. That is the fair way; the American way; the Constitutional way.

Film falls under this as well as a medium of expression. We know that a major portion of the Hollywood elite also support the President. The overwhelming majority of documentary and political films are highly critical of conservative ideals and label libertarians as lunatics however, they are vocally supportive of the progressive movement. Why is it that the demands for a fair and diverse representation of opposing views is not being thrust upon film and entertainment industry as fervently as it is in the broadcast media? After all, there is an agency for that. Once again, the majority of Hollywood and their works merge nicely with the agenda of this administration so that is obviously diverse enough to gain a pass from the watchful eye of government. Besides, Hollywood guards themselves far more carefully that government ever could.

Ron Silver was a well known film actor as well as a progressive and liberal activist. He starred in many films and television programs and had a bright future awaiting him in the industry. That was until he was so enraged by the terror attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 that he became a very vocal supporter of President Bush and of the war to bring those responsible to justice. That did not fit the Hollywood mold and the powers that be saw to it that he rarely, if ever worked again. His exclusion from film continued right up to the time of his death.

The internet is now under assault because of the wide spread use of this forum for those who wish to be heard. Most would not take the time if the news reported actual news instead of airing hour long editorial pieces. No one would waste their time on blogs, web pages and web news if the press would fulfill their obligation to accurately and fairly report the unfiltered truth. Since the profusion of people that believe this nation is in danger have taken to the internet to spread the word, that has become a threat similar to that on broadcast networks. New legislation is being drafted that would give the President the authority to deny internet traffic, even private and business internet traffic, in the event of a national crisis.

Well since this administration has assumed the reigns of government how many crisis’s have already been announced in an attempt to fast track legislation in keeping with the President’s agenda? Let’s see….there was the subprime mortgage crisis, the climate crisis, the healthcare crisis, the credit crisis, the banking crisis…on and on. Is it far fetched to assume that if internet journalists and bloggers are impeding the President’s progress in healthcare or the climate by causing doubt in the minds of Americans, could that not be viewed as a “national crisis” all by itself?

No, the founding fathers recognized that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were of paramount importance to the Republic and are part of the natural right that all men possessed with or without government consent. We do not need government control of free speech because we have already insured that hand in hand with the freedom of speech there is a responsibility that has tangible and effective enforcements.

If the misuse of your free speech rights has denied a person any one of their basic civil rights then there are legal and civil consequences for that. If you yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater there are legal and civil consequences for that as well, especially if there are injuries. If you slander someone with false accusations there are legal and civil consequences for that too. It seems like the people and the States themselves have done a pretty good job in making sure people use this freedom wisely without the heavy handed oversight of the Federal Government which once again, proves the genius and foresight of those amazing crafters of the Constitution.

Please come back tomorrow for part three of the First Amendment…Freedom of Assembly


Paul