(supposed to be titled)
--- WHERE ARE ALL THE FREE SPEECH VANGUARDS? ---
Sometimes I think we need an N.R.A. type organization for the First Amendment...an organization which will fight tooth-and-nail to keep governments from the municipal to Federal level and businesses from Mom&Pop stores to multi-national conglomerates from passing laws, mandates, or guidelines which in any way restrict the free-speech rights of its citizens as well as, yes, the other aspects of that Amendment too - I'm not forgetting them...speech is kinda the cornerstone aspect of the whole Amendment. Removing free speech rights negatively affects one's ability to exercise religion freely, be a news reporter, assemble peaceably, and petition the government with grievances.
One that would fight just as vigilantly as the N.R.A. does now for the Second Amendment. Just as the N.R.A. opposes any restrictions on gun-ownership rights for American citizens while promoting responsible gun use, I would like this imaginary First Amendment organization to adamantly oppose any legislation which restricts one's ability to practice free speech while actively promoting responsible free speech use.
I'm one of those people who tends to believe (not always mind you) that outlawing something doesn't necessarily change the behavior being outlawed. Prohibition is this nation's ultimate example. Outlawing alcohol sales and consumption in the United States did not cause the nation as a whole to give up alcohol. I'm sure a statistically significant percentage of Americans did give up booze for the entire time it was illegal never once regretting having done so or having given thought to breaking the law to get some alcohol in their system. This, however, would not be the case for most of the rest of the nation and it resulted in the rise of organized crime, widespread disregard of the law, and the spread of dangerous alcohols (since like with illegal drugs today, you really can't go to the Better Business Bureau to report having been sold cocaine of a less-than-agreed-upon purity nor could you then report that your illegal booze had been spiked with antifreeze to give it an extra kick). I'm also one of those people who tends to be against creating laws prohibiting things which are already prohibited if it would just be applied to an already-existing law (e.g. Hate Crime legislation is redundant as it is already a crime to rob, beat-up, assault, murder, etc. an individual - the color of the victim's skin, gender, orientation, etc. are not relevant and even if they were a motivating/deciding factor in the crime committed, it doesn't change the fact that the crime committed was already a crime).
And while yes, I understand that an organization promoting First Amendment rights would quickly overreach and get out of hand, I would still rather have that than the micro-managed world I feel like I increasingly belong to. And I would want this imaginary group to sue over the stupidest things too like not keeping score in a game or forcing kids to give Valentines to everyone or guys in the workplace not being allowed to hang up pictures of scantily-clad women in addition to opposing legislation against broader topics like bullying and harassment as well as other topics which are easy to recognize but difficult to define. The classic example is pornography and the definition given is usually some form of, "You know it when you see it." Try defining pornography for yourself and see if you can do it in such a way which does not accidentally exclude actual art or education. Basically I'm looking for a group which protects the assholes in society. They're not the kinds of people you can legislate against. People who are petty, self-absorbed, inconsiderate, offensive, baiting, etc. need to be dealt with extra-legally. That's what managers, teachers, and other people in positions of authority are for. Otherwise you end up getting laws seeking to micro-manage and I really can't get behind that kind of shit.
I know I'm not speaking for everyone when I say this but I would much rather have to figure out how to deal with jerks and assholes than to have everyone afraid to say anything to anyone for fear of legally offending another. I'm not happy living in a litigious culture. I really and firmly believe in what Abraham Lincoln counseled in his days as a lawyer: "Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough." I firmly believe we need leave authority in the hands of those who have it. Let a boss at the workplace determine what is acceptable and what has gone too far. Let the teacher be able to determine the difference between "Knock it off!" and "send to the principal". And so on and so forth. It would be most certainly an imperfect world but it, I think, would be a better world to have too little legislation affecting our First Amendment rights than to have too much.
I find that those organizations which do exist with the First Amendment in mind (G.L.A.A.D., the A.C.L.U., and N.A.A.C.P. to name a few) more often seek to create restrictions rather than preserve freedoms. And as it has been said before, there is a big difference between "I am offended" and "I am offended and no one should be allowed to do that"
Okay...pills are kicking in now. Enjoy some Patrice O'Neal.
No comments:
Post a Comment