A High-Quality First Amendment Read

I really like this, because folks like John McCain, the drive-by media, and other members of the lunatic PC brigades need to realize that free speech is in fact, free. Not only that, the First Amendment exists to protect icky and unpopular speech, so if some speech offeeeeends you or hurts your feeeeeewings, debate the speaker or let it go and move on. What you may not do, however, is file a lawsuit or pass a law making it illegal for certain things to be said just because you don't like them, period, end of story.

Via From the Grand Stand:

Discrimination Rights

"Part of the problem with functioning in our chaotic society is the blatant hypocrisy of some of our activists.

For reference purposes:

Amendment I
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.

If I were to make this statement: "People should not be promiscuous," I'd get all sorts of comments along the lines of "The government shouldn't be in the business of passing morality laws!"

Of course, I didn't say anything about the government getting involved. I only stated my opinion. I never suggested or inferred in that statement that The People should get the government involved. But the point is that a lot of folks would get their panties in a knot for suggesting that we intrude on the morality of others. (It is my opinion that being promiscuous is a bad idea, that it threatens society as a whole, and should be avoided with all the pressures society can bring to the party-up to the point of getting the government involved.)

Try this statement: "Publishing cartoons that demean another man's religion are in poor taste and should be avoided." I'd have the Free Speech absolutists down my neck in a second.

But again, I did not suggest that we should surrender our freedom of speech, only that it is a good and wise idea not to exercise rights irresponsibly, nor is it logical to presume that a right to do something automatically means that doing it is a moral and proper thing. You don't need to express your every thought and opinion. Further, exercizing a right doesn't mean you are free from The People's consequences of choosing to exercise ityou are only free from The Government's consequence. The government cannot impose the consequences. THAT is what the Bill of Rights protects and no more.

It is the consequences where we've gotten things all screwed up. The Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights specifically, were not written to control what The People may do. The Bill of Rights was articulated to limit what the government may do. The government cannot infringe on your right to express your opinions, especially with respect to political speech.

Further, the government cannot pass laws which limit your access to your Representatives ("and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), ie, lobbying. If your church group elects a member to petition the government to change some law, and you support that, you can't turn around and suggest that the NRA or Sierra Club are prohibited because they have more money or members. ALL groups (large and small) and individuals are entitled to equal access to our representatives and the government cannot restrict that access because of the First Amendment (and screw the USSC for finding McCain-Feingold constitutionalit is only Constitutional in some sort of alternate reality where "Congress shall make NO law" is interpreted to mean "Congress can do whatever it damn well pleases, regardless of Constitutional prohibitions.").

The government must remain impartial. The government cannot declare an official national religion, but an individual may adopt a religion. In other words, you can say what you want, associate with whomever you want, and believe whatever you want. Expressing your religious opinions is protected speech. Expressing your political opinions is protected speech. You have freedom of consciencethat is, in a nutshell, what the First Amendment is all about. You have freedom OF conscience and freedom not to have one at all.

"The clergybelieve that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."

Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

Expressing your opinion of others, to associate with them or not, is protected behavior. The Government cannot do anything to stop itpass laws or engage in any activities, which would infringe on your rights to do those things. But The People can respond however they want, within their same rights.

Nowhere inferred in the Bill or Rights is there a restriction on individuals or a suggestion that private individuals or businesses are "the government." An individual or business cannot "pass laws." An individual or business can establish policies, based on their opinions, and the government is prohibited from passing any law which would limit the expression of that opinion.

All this came to mind because of a post over at Classical Values. In a nutshell, a man has put up a sign that says "Speak English." The Mayor of the city has said the man has a right to express himself and there is nothing the city can do to make him take the sign down (of course the Mayor qualified his statements with "I think." Ya Think?). But so far, so good. But then the Mayor goes on to say, in a classic bait and switch, "if he faithfully and without any kind of discrimination serves anyone who comes up to that window, no matter the language that person speaks, in spite of the fact that he has a sign."

EXCUSE ME?

Not only does the property owner have a right to the sign, he has a right to refuse to do business with anyone he chooses, based on whatever opinions he wishes to put in practice. That kind of policy and exercising of speech and action may cost him customers, but it cannot violate any laws. There can be no law, which is Constitutional, which prevents the man from discriminating against anyone. THAT is protected behavior.

We have all sorts of unconstitutional laws on the bookslaws which prohibit an individual or business from discriminating against someone or expressing "hate speech" against a person or group. I'm sorry, where in the First Amendment does it have an asterisk that says "except when we find it icky"? The PURPOSE of the First Amendment is to protect that which is distasteful, hateful, horrid, and disturbing. You have a right to express your opinions, no matter how vile they might be.

Now I might boycott you for doing so, but that is in my rightthat is the power that The People bring to bear to keep people in line-those are the consequences for exercising your rights. I'm choosing to discriminate against you because of the discrimination you've shown. Failing to recognize that boycotts (or even buycotts) are a form of discrimination is nuts.

So I'd get applauded by some activist for boycotting a store that put up a sign that demanded customers speak English. I'd get similar praise for refusing to do business with a company who didn't hire minorities. THAT kind of discrimination is OK and I'd get applauded for it. If, however, I recognize a store owner's right to do the same thing, even when I disagree with him, I'd be attacked.

Discriminating against people for their race, creed or religion is disturbing, but you have a right to do that. Failure to support discrimination when it makes you feel good to do so requires that you also support a person's right to discriminate when their opinions make you sick. Otherwise, you're attempting to enforce morality through the power of the government, an action not supported when it limits sexual behavior, but fully supported and applauded when it curtails the expression of bigotry. I don't have to do business with that person, but I cannot demand that the government get involved because the government is prohibited from getting involved "Congress shall make no law" Remember?

To suggest otherwise is hypocrisy, plain and simple. Take your pick. Pick your poison. You either recognize that people have the right to make decisions, express opinions, and demonstrate behavior and the government has no authority to get involved or you don't.

You can't choose to have the government involved when someone discriminates because of bigotry and at the same time suggest that the government should not get involved when you discriminate against them because they ARE a bigot. Both are discrimination. One is considered good, the other bad. TOUGH. Both are protected.

The People can respond with their feet and their dollars, but the government has no authority to intervene, pro or con. To suggest otherwise means that you want the government to pass morality laws when the action is repulsive to you, but not when you think it is OK.

You have a RIGHT to discriminatein your personal and business affairs. But recognizing a right means you have to extend that same recognition to others, even when it galls you to do so. This sometimes requires that we support a kind of discrimination that we find repulsive.

We have to prevent people like the Mayor of Philadelphia from sticking his nose into affairs in which he has no authority. Yeah, it sucks when we have to defend a bigot, but that is the price of freedom. We either respect freedom in all its guises or we don't respect freedom at all."