Wow, aren't we lucky to have them here in the US . They “gave”
the Bundy Ranch supporters a free speech zone and the University of Hawaii
allows one for certain groups (http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/24/another-university-stops-students-from-handing-out-constitution/#ixzz2zugAXUop)
and now there is a bill being proposed that allows us freedom of speech as long
as we are in free speech zones (http://www.prisonplanet.com/hate-crime-reporting-act-a-dangerous-threat-to-free-speech.html)
We are sooooo lucky.
Interesting post Angie. On the prison planet page, I found this http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-jesus-was-really-killed-challenging-the-money-changers.html which I thought was quite interesting. I pretty much agree with it more than not, but since liberals and conservatives are not allowed to work together, not much point in discussing that. I think the title of that page is also a little ironic considering that the land of the free far and away has the highest per capita rates of incarceration in the world.
ReplyDeleteSomething that has bothered me for awhile are these restrained free speech zones at political conventions, both parties do them and in Bush's case, there are instances of audiences being cleansed of anyone who could be deemed not a supporter. I have little doubt democrats have done the same stuff. The internet, unfortunately, has given a bullhorn to all variety of speech that driven by pure hatred. The fringe left and fringe right thrive on it. Defending freedom, IMO, sometimes means that you refrain from doing something you have a right to do. If you do something too often, you sometimes wind up in a battle you later regret.
I'll admit my angry blasts here don't do much for democracy, and though I have respect for people who show up to protest something, I think it gets to a point where most moderate folks say to themselves, "I get your point, now how bout getting out of my face about it" Much of what people claim as free speech is really just a catalyst to piss people off. We are using free speech less and less wisely IMO
Reading the post from Angie and the associated references I find the following(the bill) , would task the National Telecommunications and Information Administration with filing reports on Internet, radio and television content that seeks “to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate”. Can someone please assist my understanding by explaining the reason News Papers and their proprietors appear to be excluded from the proposal? Also I note that the proposal is from a Democratic member of Congress. Is this of great significance in relation to the more extreme members of the right, e.g. the Tea Party grouping within the Republicans?
ReplyDeleteNow, having a reasonably serious interest in your politics, history and culture; I ask if the 1st amendment was written with the intention or even the perceived need to promote the freedom of citizens to spew hatred towards those with whom they disagree,?
The sacred rights Americans claim from the Bill of Rights is not well understood by the rest of the world. We can all see from whence they are derived, most can understand the necessity for them. Without the bill, there could not have been universal ratification of the constitution. Where we have trouble is in understanding the perceived necessity to fly to the constitution for redress from any perceived wrong against the citizens by the government those same citizens elected to govern them.
It is passing strange for interested foreigners to follow the outpouring of bile from someone who does not want to spit in the eye of either his government ;or god forbid his neighbor who is of a different faith or skin color to himself. This same man however will defend to the death the rights of his neighbor to do so with impunity.
I conclude with my usual claim of neutrality. I write these pieces and pose questions in order to enhance my understanding of your nation and your people. A question sometimes is loaded in order to elicit a response which may not be available elsewhere; not even from Patrick Henry or old Samuel Adams! Jefferson helps, as does Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. What would the world pay to get those greats back again?What advice would they give me today
Cheers from
What scares me king is the foreign regurgitation of our values through the socialists lens. A refocusing of your bifocals would be appreciated.
DeleteName one instance of an "extreme" Tea Party movement participant causing anyone harm. People standing and educating others of their constitutional rights are not extremists here in America. Unless you follow the established shallow well paid for media.
You scare me if you disseminate your analysis to young minds.
One mans assessment of speech as hate is another mans pronouncement of freedom. I think you know most of the answers to your questions King. At the least, anyone who spends six months conversing with people on this board knows how each person will answer. it must be frustrating at times to post stimulating questions only to be answered with bomb throwing. Were we to bring back the founding fathers today, I think much of what they say would have some predictability as it would be rooted the mentality of the world they came from. Every human being is full of contradiction, and so it was with the founding fathers. Certainly they were wise and visionary and in my opinion, I believe they expected the views of the citizens to change over time and hence, expected that we would change the rules we choose to govern ourselves by. One guess I have about the advice they would give is that if you want to understand something, go experience it firsthand.
DeleteThe life experiences you have described sound quite incredible and also well beyond the comprehension of most on this board. Rich as they are, they are also, ironically, constraining. Constraining because I don't think you have the ability to shrink your view to such a narrow focus that you believe everything should be catered to your liking. Reading posts from myself and William, I don't think you can miss that there is serious, deeply ingrained discontent in this country. You would probably learn more by stopping in a pubs and drinking John Adams beer than you will reading the words of the man.
ReplyDeleteWilliam my thanks.
We have been here before but again I must disown your "socialist” suggestion. If pressed, I identify as a conservative (in Australia) and would certainly support the Republicans in America were I privileged to have a vote in your country. I too abhor the interference of government in the affairs of business other than as much as is necessary to protect the people from excesses of capital, and to provide a safety net to ensure all citizens are provided a reasonable standard of living. If the citizen requires more than is reasonable, he is, or should be entitled to work harder to achieve those desires.
I cited the Tea Party movement as extreme using the accepted definition as being a minority (or rump) of members of a larger group with similar but more extreme ideals than the main body of the movement. I think that in all good conscience you will agree that my definition does fit the group.
You did not respond to my enquiry concerning the absence of printed press in the proposed legislation and perhaps this is a legislative requirement under your system of government. Perhaps printed words are regulated differently to electronic transmission
Perhaps you could respond in more detail to the observations I made concerning the Bill of Rights, we can derive much from a discussion on this aspect rather than trying to put down each other by name calling.
Cheers from Aussie
This is a wet dream by Markey and Jeffries. Not even worth a comment.
ReplyDeleteWilliam,
ReplyDeleteWhen I read your latest post I am given to wondering why you would object to any restrictions on freedom of speech; you do not after all, have anything to say do you?
Out of curiosity, I researched Markey and Jeffries at a very basic level. I had not of course previously heard of them and the correlation between two unknowns and something politely known as a nocturnal emission was cause for investigation.
Of course I should not have been surprised to discover the gentlemen in question are Democratic politicians, that they have proposed measures to which you object would appear to be the reason for your disparaging remarks concerning nocturnal events.
Although I support freedom of speech in most circumstances, consider the words of your second President, uttered in the trial of British soldiers following the Boston Massacre. Quote. "a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes, and mulattoes, Irish leagues and outlandish jack tars" unquote. Do you not find these words offensive and can you not see the reasoning behind the new proposals? Perhaps it is your particular group which is the reason for the present disquiet. If a vocal minority of the population can usurp the views of the majority, perhaps legislative restrictions, no matter how irksome, are warranted.
Cheers from Aussie
The only way you'll find me in a free speech zone king is if my toes are pointing straight up.
DeleteFree speech zones in America? Are you friggin kidding me?
Markey and Jefferies are charlatans.
Taylor believed that the Federalists were using the Sedition Act to expand centralized power, which would subvert individual liberty. He [xiv] warned that “one usurpation begat another.”10 The states granted certain power to the federal government and, he argued, if the federal government acted unconstitutionally and tyrannically, the states and the people must act to check the concentration of power. He believed disunion was better than oppression. Taylor told his fellow Virginians that liberty was their country and they must be ready to protect it.11 His later works, especially Tyranny Unmasked, were efforts to further identify the tyrant.⚓✪
DeleteIn the 1800 election, Taylor and other Republicans who had taken a Country opposition stand could hope that they had been victorious. Yet, although Jefferson spoke of reforming Federalist abuses and of reducing the size of the government, he also took a moderate course between the Federalists and the extreme wing of his own party. None of the acts establishing the Hamiltonian system was repealed. Taylor saw the refusal by the Jefferson and Madison administrations to advance the “revolution of 1800” as a betrayal. The Republican party continued to gain support, but Taylor believed republican principles had been abandoned. He wrote that an “adherence to men, is often disloyalty to principles.” Taylor and others who continued in the tradition of the Country republican ideology, now calling themselves the “Old Republicans,” believed that those who were attracted to power—“majority men” tended always to become corrupt and to abuse the trust and betray the best interests of the people. For this tendency, they had to be watched by “minority men.”12
In 1820, after the Marshall Court's opinions in Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee and McCulloch vs. Maryland, Taylor attacked the Court's broad construction of the Constitution in Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated. He described two kinds of constitutional construction: one to maintain principled government and the other to corrupt [xv] government. He believed the latter was used by those in power to extend that power and the founders never intended “this pernicious species of construction.”13 He felt that the Supreme Court used a broad construction to assert its supremacy over Constitutional interpretation and over state courts. Because state and federal courts were separate, he felt state courts should also interpret the Constitution. Taylor wrote that constitutional uniformity was not necessary. Separate constitutional opinions would preserve liberty and keep “our system for dividing, limiting, and checking power.”14
As he went on to explain in Tyranny Unmasked, the Constitution was of value only to keep the federal government operating in accord with what Taylor called the principles of 1776 or 1798. “We need only recollect that the intention and end of the constitution was to 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' ”15 For Taylor, the Constitution was of worth only if it could serve the more fundamental cause of liberty: “the real design of the constitution.”16 The adherence to principle was what he meant by “constitutional.”
In Tyranny Unmasked and in his other political treatises, Taylor rejected the argument that the majority of the American nation could impose its will upon any minority in order to achieve what was asserted to be in the general welfare. Since Taylor believed there was no American people, only a union of states, majority rule in Congress was irrelevant where it did not have the authority to act. The Constitution gave the federal government certain specified powers and it could not move beyond them. More to the point, Taylor would not bow to majority rule when it compromised principles of government. He thought governmental acts in violation of principle, even if sanctioned by a construction of the Constitution, were tyrannical. If advocated by a majority in Congress, it was a tyranny of the majority.
William and Max
ReplyDeleteMy thanks,
For William first. "Tyranny Unmasked", surely at least one chapter in the Tea Party Handbook. It is fortunate for me that you have inserted him into the debate as I had intended revisiting the works of John Taylor this week.
For those who are not familiar with the man, Taylor appears to have been one of the first to concern himself with the possibility pf tyranny by the elected government. He was also something of a rebel in his beliefs and proudly claimed that he would always be in opposition to government.( Tea Party movement !!!!)
Well connected and wed to the daughter of one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence (Penn), Taylor was from the very early days involved in opposition to changes to the constitution. Although my knowledge of the Tea Party Movement is gleaned mostly from the writings of William, I can see quite clearly the embryonic beginnings of the movement in the modern offerings of the movement. Perhaps in common with his hero, William could make a heap of noise but leave little to posterity which enhances the nation.
Max.
I agree with your assessment, I also admit to being a stubborn old fool. My interest in America must be obvious to you and my admiration for its people has been often displayed here on these blogs and elsewhere. For years I have been inundated with offers of hospitality if I came to America. For years I have declined on the grounds that I fear being able to survive within the lifestyle, the sheer pace of life and the modern facets of life which we have yet to experience. I have never been held back by lack of funds, simply the lack of courage. For this reason I have tried to learn by argument, by questioning and by study. I think now I have overcome the fear but advancing years have put the final negative to further travel overseas.
Cheers from Aussie
King if you were ever able to make the long trip to New York I would be happy to show you around the city, Times Square and Broadway, take you to a Yankee game, show you the beautiful state of New Jersey, and even take you to our local Tea Party meeting.
DeleteI'm quite sure our Jersey Shore cannot rival your world renown Austrailian beaches but the offer to meet my family will remain open.
Cheers from Perrineville, New Jersey
"The environmental movement was in its ascendancy and had persuaded Congress to enact a series of well-intentioned laws that posed threats of great mischief in the hands of covetous bureaucrats, radical groups, and activist judges. A conservationist and an environmentalist, Ronald Reagan believed in being a good steward. More than anything else, however, he believed in people; specifically, for him, people were part of the ecology as well. That was where the split developed."
DeletePEOPLE ARE PART OF THE ECOLOGY AS WELL!
Seems that the NBA is not a free speech zone.
DeleteWilliam.
DeleteMy sincere thanks for your kind invitation. The temptation is great but the reality is an impossibility. Many of my interests are just down the road from your home. Lincoln Memorial listening to an American reading the Gettysburg address, The Smithsonian with Lincolns Hat, Williamsburg and its history. Monticello. Gettysburg, not for the history of the civil war but for the memory of the great men who have graced the place.
Do the Yankees play football of baseball? Above all a chance to attend a Tea Party Movement meeting as an observer... I would find such a meeting of great interest, and from previous experience with American people, I would be treated with the greatest courtesy whether I agreed with you or not.
Cheers from Aussie
Our Tea Party members would give you the floor and love to hear your views, this we do with any visitor.
DeleteThe New York Yankees are the 26 time world baseball champions. They have employed Austrailian players infrequently.
Washington DC is but 3.5 hours down the interstate, Philadelphia an hour, Princeton 20 minutes, and Monticello with the University of Virginia ( the greatest public university in the world, which my oldest son attended) is less than a 6 hour trip and well worth the effort. UVa houses the backup library of congress in a building that extends four stories underground. Jefferson following selling his library to the US congress purchased replica volumes from Europe and began the backup onsite minutes from his glorious rotunda and lawn.
Gettysburg is fabulous and about a four hour trip. One could spend days there. Last year they held the 150th anniversary of the battle and a few Tea Party friends of mine attended.
A trip would not be complete without a short flight to the old south and a visit to Charleston SC. The city that originated the civil war was not raised by the Union forces and stands as a time capsule of the age. Keep in mind that Charleston was the richest city in the world for about three hundred years. Our school of architecture at Clemson U proudly shares in the restoration and preservation of the Antebellum Neoclassical architectural style.
Lot's to see and absorb and I have been privileged to visit and study all of these sites. Hope you can come by some day.
Our Tea Party meeting is this evening, ironically on May day. I will share with the group that we have penetrated the consciousness of the other side of our planet.
DeleteCheers