If it weren’t for the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, I’d have to get a real job. But the qualifications listed in help-wanted ads almost never mention contempt for authority, indifferent personal hygiene and prodigious consumption of beer, rendering me ill-suited to anything resembling regular employment.
So when I hear agitated people on both the right and left calling for new limits on speech, I wonder if they’ve thought that through. Do they really want their tax dollars paying for my General Assistance check?
Nevertheless, in recent weeks, outraged citizens have made demands that, in the unlikely event they became law, would severely curtail my – and your – constitutional right to spout off.
It began at South Portland High School, an institution I escaped from decades ago. In January, senior class president Lily SanGiovanni was reading the morning announcements over the intercom when she invited students and faculty to join her in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance “if you’d like to.”
From the frothing-at-the-mouth reaction, you’d have thought SanGiovanni had called for something really odious, such as swearing fealty to Boko Haram, drinking Bud Light Mixxtails or forcing everyone to sit through a showing of “Chappie.”
Online and in print, critics, ironically employing their First Amendment rights, demanded that anyone who opted out of the Pledge or any part thereof should immediately be deported. These true Americans and staunch defenders of democracy believe reciting that oath should be mandatory.
Like in North Korea.
I admit I’ve got problems with the Pledge. For starters, it’s aimed at the flag, which is a fine symbol, but nowhere near as important as the Constitution, part of which keeps me gainfully employed and much of the rest of which keeps me heavily taxed. Then there’s that “under God” thing, which seems to require taking a religious view in order to express loyalty to an expressly nonreligious institution (see the aforementioned First Amendment). Finally there’s the matter of “and to the republic for Richard Stans.” Until third grade, I faithfully recited the Pledge that way each school day, under the assumption Stans must be one of the lesser-known Founding Fathers.
The lesson here (one the South Portland schools failed to convey at the time) is that requiring rote recitation neither assures accuracy nor demonstrates allegiance. It takes more than that, and reminding people that the Pledge is optional is an excellent way of prodding them to consider their feelings about their country and to express them as they see fit. This healthy introspection has prompted me to start a petition drive calling for the U.S. Postal Service to issue a stamp honoring Richard Stans.
As noted previously, it’s not just conservatives who object to free speech. Like their reactionary cousins, liberals are all in favor of unfettered expression – right up until somebody says something they don’t like.
Consider the case of Republican state Sen. Michael Willette of Presque Isle. Willette has often posted stuff on his Facebook page that a reasonable person might find racist, xenophobic and above all stupid. He’s put up items promoting the ideas that President Obama is a Muslim and a foreigner, disparaging followers of Islam and immigrants in general, and praising Russian President Vladimir Putin’s repression of dissent.
Like most boneheads, Willette doesn’t seem to have a clue about the messages he’s conveying. After issuing an apology of sorts on the Senate floor earlier this month, he told reporters, “I am about as far from being a racist as you can get. … Any connotation to racism in those posts, if that is what it was construed to be, that is not the intent.”
Willette is up for re-election next year, at which time his constituents will be able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to judge his fitness to remain in office.
Since he won his last race by a narrow margin, there’s a likelihood he’ll pay for his bigotry at the polls. But that’s not good enough for his critics. They’ve termed his postings “hate speech,” as well as calling for his resignation, his censure by the Senate and/or his investigation for possible ethics violations – any of which might be construed as inhibiting his right to say whatever he wants.
Strangely, some of Willette’s defenders find his praise of Putin’s despotism to be less objectionable than SanGiovanni’s reminder that the Pledge of Allegiance is voluntary. They think his discredited opinions on Obama’s birthplace and religion aren’t as fanciful as the existence of Richard Stans.
Conversely, certain of SanGiovanni’s allies have somehow convinced themselves that Willette’s distasteful views are less a form of constitutionally protected expression than skipping the words “under God.”
That’s the sad state of free speech in Maine today.
It’s enough to make me want to burn a flag.
Exercise your constitutional rights by emailing me at aldiamon@herniahill.net.
“If it weren’t for the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, I’d have to get a real job. But the qualifications listed in help-wanted ads almost never mention contempt for authority, indifferent personal hygiene and prodigious consumption of beer, rendering me ill-suited to anything resembling regular employment.”
You’re definitely in the right place, Al!
As noted previously, it’s not just conservatives who object to free speech. Like their reactionary cousins, liberals are all in favor of unfettered expression – right up until somebody says something they don’t like.
Al….congratulations!
I haven’t burst out laughing at the truth like I did when I read those words…ever!
Now I have to wipe up the coffee I sprayed everywhere….(my poor dog. :) …)
Good one and soooo true.
Why do racists contend they aren’t racists? Because few people want to actually be in that club? Because they can’t recognize their own bigotry? Because they want to say/do whatever they want without reproach?
AL:
You’re on the right track with Willette. The first amendment is a two way street.
If it weren’t for the fact that the interwebs allow the Senator a public outlet to try his hand at what he considers humor and enlightenment, few would be aware of what a gem Presque Isle has produced. I’d say that Facebook has sunk his chances for reelection, but after last November who knows.
Because they want to say/do whatever they want without reproach?
This is not the exclusive purview of racists. The same question can – and should – be asked of every politician, wherever they fall in the spectrum, and every member – current and past – of the Obama administration. Um, the dog ate my hard drive. Sorry, Senator, I can’t give you those zillions of incriminating emails.
Elmira…where is your reproach for this:
Azealia Banks – “I hate everything about this country. Like, I hate fat white Americans…All the people who are crunched into the middle of America, the real fat and meat of America, are these racist conservative white people who live on their farms…Those little teenage girls who work at Kmart and have a racist grandma – that’s real America.”
No media reaction whatsoever. None. When one blogger decided to point out her hypocrisy on the matter,
she sent him a snap shot of her genetalia. When the bloggers wife asked Azealia not to send such things to her husband, Twitter came alive with all of Azealias Twitter fly supporters asking the blogger to choke on his own vomit.
Free speech is in a sad state…isn’t it Al.
Larry Dunphy also likes to express his views on Face Book, and they are very much in line with Willette’s. In fact, he has expressed his support for Willette.
As for emails, doesn’t it seem a bit odd that in the second decade of the 21st century, a time when even rag tag terrorists can post their evil deeds on the internet, that a man who has spent a lifetime in politics, a man who was the republican nominee for President – doesn’t even have an email account? Doesn’t know how? and even brags about that?
@ snowmelt: Absolutely no idea who A. Banks is. I don’t frequent blogs in general and have never done twitter.
I presume that A. Banks is not an elected official nor a celebrity of some sort. What she said is certainly in poor taste and is reproachable. Satisfied?
Azealia Banks is a well known rap star. You will have to Google her for the rest as the Daily Bulldog moderators have twice removed my post when I try to explain.
It’s a good thing for the 1st ammend. or trash like what you write would not be allowed and neither would my responcse to it. So thank GOD for free speech.
While I believe Ms. Banks is a racist and bigoted individual herself, the comment made was to illustrate and provide evidence of the successful application of this double-standard that is not hard to find these days.
Also, we are seeing the rise of easily offended individuals influencing and basing policy decisions on the need to protect those most easily offended which sets a dangerous precedent, one which strikes directly at the heart of freedom of speech and expression.
Here’s the bottom line: Our liberties like freedom of speech are unalienable rights from our Creator. Neither foreign powers, our president nor self-censorship can be allowed to suppress them, ever. It’s not to protect you from being offended.
Don’t elected officials generally take some sort of oath of office, as do military personnel?
Would not being faithful to those oaths prohibit that person from engaging in acts that violate those oaths?
Our constitution, both state and federal, gives equal status and protections to members of all religions. For an elected official then to express the bias, racism and bigotry racism that Willette has, would be in violation of his oath of office. That is a separate matter than his right to free speech.
“Our liberties like freedom of speech are unalienable rights from our (capitol C) creator”?
”So thank (caps lock) god for free speech”?
Wrong in both cases. I thank the wisdom of our so-called founding fathers for the first amendment protections of free speech. A mythological sky being had nothing to do with it.
I choose to thank my “sky being” for life itself.(that’s actually funny.).
I choose to believe He (yes that’s it) has everything to do with that.
Oh and a little change of address, He doesn’t live in the sky……
Don’t look up..look within.
But we are not forced to believe anything.
If that were so..it would be fruitless.
Free for the asking.
Wise Men Still Seek Him.
The core of this shared foundation becomes most apparent when one contrasts the distinctly modern republican principles which predominate in the Bill of Rights with the profoundly contrasting principles of classical and Christian republicanism.
“The Bill of Rights is rooted in the idea of the primacy of egalitarian, autonomous, individual “natural rights” (plural)—to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” especially through limitless, competitive acquisitiveness. From these self-regarding rights, and their mortally competitive spontaneous expression (the “state of nature”), reason deduces prudential, artificial rules, honorifically if misleadingly given the hallowed term “natural laws.” By following these rules, centered on the idea of contract, the natural rights are tamed so as to foster peacefully competitive commercial societies that shrewdly maximize collective and individual self-interest, above all through de-legitimizing the political cultivation of spiritual fulfillment.”
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Declaration of Independence.
Oh, and BTW, a capitol (with an o) is a building that houses a government’s legislative branch…just saying.
Aye, Zap dude, I got ur drift, man…I feel u and, umm, I’m down with ur belief or lack of, it’s just the latter, u need to go back and refocus and read the history books u didn’t carry BC they were too heavy, dude. And oh, oh, yeah, English grammar would help a little also…dude.
Sorry guys,, I just couldn’t help it…
The first meaning was expressed over a half-century ago by Mr. Justice Holmes in Missouri v. Holland5 with his customary felicity when he said:
“. . . When we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to re- alize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation.”
JL, ( and to the admin):
You should credit the author when you copy what they wrote. Failure to do so is plagiarism.
Thomas L. Pangle wrote what you pasted in above.
Not surprisingly, he’s in Texas. If Ted Cruz is Galileo, this guy is probably Copernicus.
He seems to me, to have gotten the bill of rights mixed up with the writing of Locke and Rousseau.
Certainly, the drafters of our constitution were familiar, even inspired by the enlightenment philosophers.
However:
The primary reason that Bill of Rights was written and adopted was to insure and balance the rights of the states to those of the federal government. Later amendments have been interpreted as extending those rights to individuals.
Attempts to twist history so as to alter the presumed intent of the founders and thus demonstrate that our government is not being faithful to our constitution is wrong.
Yes you are right on the fact I did not write what I quoted or added to my comments in “quotes” I did not attempt to get credit for it, only for brevity and point out a specific meaning in response to another comment without the biographical citations, or else this blog would get extremely long and boring.
Oh, just in case you “Googled it” what I wrote was not a direct word for word copy even though I quoted it, I paraphrased it. Also, the case I did cite has been discussed by many writers and lawyers not just the one you noted as did the frustrations with the Bill of Rights and Natural Laws discussions.
The substance of things hoped for.
The evidence of things not see.
Sad how many are blind because they have no hope.
No hope because they have no faith.
Empty.
He was wounded for our transgressions.
Bruised for our inequities.
Never transgressed?
Don’t need to be forgiven?
Sky Being has certainly looked past much worse than a smartly little name calling…
And He Died for “you” still….
Like it or not.
“Sky being”.. still just cracks me up zaphod… Lol.
:)
Thanks for your perspective in regard to, and reminder of, Willette’s constitutional right to make a fool of himself for his enmity and racist postings on social media sites. I too enjoy my freedoms to guzzle copies amounts of beer, dispage idiot politicians, and bathe infrequently; I am, after all a Frenchman, Al, and have a surplus of flags should we need one.