OK, so an old High School classmate posted the following on Face Book today and I just wanted to take a few minutes to jot down some ideas about it, since I feel so very strongly about the idea. No names, just so nobody blasts him. If you are friends on Facebook, you’ve probably already seen it anyway…
“I believe it's time to modify the First (sic) Ammendment. You know, Freedom of Speech. I see so much hate being spewed under the protection of Free speech. I think we need to modify it to protect the individual and their right to pursue the happiness as guaranteed in the Constitution. The basic pursuit to be happy should override some douchebags pursuit to to be a DICK! These Baptist assholes who cloak themselves in the first (sic) ammendment so they can crap on (sic) someones right to mourn in peace should be EXEMPT from this Freedom! I BELIEVE THESE ARE HATE CRIMES AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH!
We've let the lawyers and judges take away too many rights of freedom and happiness from the good and peaceful in this country and give it to the mean and hateful DICKS and DOUCHEBAGS! That includes the criminals who have more rights and power of the victims.
I'm done ranting! Time for a cocktail!”
First, a short history lesson. The Bill of rights, which contain the amendments to the constitution, was not part of the original document sent for ratification to the states in 1787. It was not until AFTER the constitution was ratified and adopted that a Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified. Many believed that by providing a list of rights, people would be limited to those rights listed ONLY. When taken in context with the Declaration of Independence, that is an understandable argument.
Just for clarity, the entire first amendment is included here:
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.
The first thing I notice here is that this amendment is about more than free speech. For this argument though, I want to concentrate on just the phrase “…abridging the freedom of speech…”.
What does it mean to “abridge the freedom of speech”, and why would the founders want to constrain the government from being able to do it? According to Dictionary.com, abridge is defined:
Verb:
- Shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
- Curtail (rights or privileges).
In this case, it is pretty clear the founders meant to prevent the government from curtailing anyone’s speech.
OK, history over. So, my friend wants to modify the first amendment to stop protecting speech he calls “hate”. The first thing I wonder is, Who defines hate? No matter who it is, it is bound to offend someone, and “abridge” their ability to speak their mind. In short, I may or may not agree with someone else’s definition of hate. Further, hate is not a speech; hate is a thought, or feeling. Is it even possible to know whether a person who says something you think is hateful thinks that speech is hateful?
Here is an example to help you understand what I mean by this. Let’s say some guy sleeps with my baby sister, gets her pregnant in the 10th grade creating a situation where she has to drop out of school to have and raise the baby. If I find the guy and pound the snot out of him is that a hate crime? What if her were a black guy? Could you tell if I was angry because he was black, or because he knocked up my sister? No (Yeah, I know this is not an example of speech, but the idea is the same). The point is, nobody knows if I do or do not “hate” someone based on my actions.
He wants to “…modify it (the first amendment) to protect the individual and their right to pursue the happiness as guaranteed in the Constitution.”
That protection, pursuit of happiness, is protected the way the amendment is presently written. That right is not even IN the constitution, but is part of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. That declaration is an interesting document, however, and bears a few comments here. What is the “pursuit of happiness” and who is it protected FOR? The answer to the second question is easy: Everyone. (NOT just Americans by the way).
I am certain you’ve read it before, but just for clarity here is the pertinent text:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
But what does it MEAN? First, that these facts (truths) are SELF-evident…they are true whether you believe them or not. They do not require a human being in any way to make them so.
All men are created equal. Self-evident, whether you believe it or not. Each and every one of us is born EXACTLY the same – No clothes, unable to care for ourselves etc. Further, we continue to be equal our entire life. Yes, entre life. Each of us is sovereign – no one person is better or worse than another. No man has the ability to control me, or you, unless we grant them that ability. This is because government derives it’s authority from the consent of the governed. Don’t believe it? Government can NOT control how you act. If you are law abiding, it is because you CHOOSE (consent) to be law abiding. That idea has plenty of evidence to back it up, just pick up a paper…an awful lot of people are not law abiding – because they CHOOSE not to be.
These rights are “endowed by our creator”. Regardless of your spiritual beliefs today, clearly the founders believed that God granted us these rights. For those who don’t believe in God, these rights are ours with or without government. Government did not give them to us, so it cannot take them away.
Among them are the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Of course, the phrase “among these” indicates that these three things are not all-inclusive…but let’s stick to them for this argument.
So what are they, these rights? Well, life is pretty clear…or maybe not, but that is for another argument. No one can kill us, or at least no one can LAWFULLY kill us.
Liberty. What IS liberty? Is that the ability to just do whatever you want whenever you want? Don’t think so, at least not lawfully. Let’s look to Tomas Jefferson to answer that question.
“Liberty is the right to be free from the coercive interference of other people. It is derived from nature itself, and is a natural right—something possessed simply because one is a human being.” (Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to Henry Lee
May 8, 1825)
Coercive interference. One man may NOT coercively compel another man to do anything. We have liberty.
So what is the pursuit of happiness? That one is a bit more “elastic”. The best I can understand it, it means I can act in any way I want to and that I believe will make me happy, just as long as in doing so I do not trample anyone else’s right. In short, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
So what does ALL this have to do with the original post? Well, it all ties together, and has to be taken together in order to be understood. First, nowhere in any of the founding documents, or any of the supporting documents, does it talk about freedom or liberty in a way that indicates we all have to like or agree that an action or speech is acceptable. It doesn’t require a majority to agree that the speech is acceptable; if anything it protects the MINORITY opinion first. It prevents a mob from restricting me as much as a single person from restricting me. Remember: A democracy (majority rules) is like three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Our founders wanted to protect the sheep.
Nor does it restrict free speech in a way that allows only for speaking out against the government. It clearly protects ALL speech, providing that speech does not cause someone to be restricted in his or her rights.
It seems, in the main, to particularly protect speech that may be offensive. After all, the folks who wrote that were speaking out against the monarchy, and saying things that many in the colonies found offensive, even traitorous! What follows in the Declaration is the list of grievances they had against the crown, and the preamble was written to explain why they felt justified in saying those things to begin with.
Clearly, the actions of the so-called church are offensive to many (me included), but which right does their inflammatory speech infringe for the people they picket? Yeah, it sucks, and yeah it is upsetting. It is offensive to most, and it makes a difficult time even more difficult. But it does not prevent anyone from having life, or liberty, or even from pursuing happiness. Providing these people do not enter private property, or act in a way that prevents these families from having their funerals, then they are not infringing a right.
What is really interesting here is that my classmate (I’d say friend, but since I haven’t seen him in more than 30 years, that one is tough…I consider him a friend, but do not want to be presumptuous) states, “We've let the lawyers and judges take away too many rights of freedom and happiness from the good and peaceful in this country and give it to the mean and hateful DICKS and DOUCHEBAGS! That includes the criminals who have more rights and power of the victims”, and then suggests we allow these SAME lawyers, judges and of course legislators to start narrowly defining what speech we do and do not have a right to. That works out great until you find yourself on the wrong end of that narrow definition.
For example, what if the dicks and douchebags are offended by your referring to them as dicks and douchebags? What if they can put together a strong enough lobby that you find yourself being accused of a hate crime for using that sort of language? It is not too far fetched, and I am sure none of these idiots would find it inoffensive. It IS s slippery slope, because it implies that our rights, which were not given by our government, can be taken away by our government. That leaves it up to whoever happens to be in office, and could land on you as easily as anyone else.
Let’s be clear. What these people are doing is reprehensible. It makes my insides twist up, not only because they are using the sorrow of these families to bring attention to themselves, but also because they do these things in the name of God, identifying themselves as Christian in a way that dishonors true Christian organizations.
We have relinquished too much of our sovereignty to the government already, we don’t need to hand them any more than they already have.
The best approach to these people is just what is going to happen; many others exercising THEIR right to free speech and getting between the morons and the suffering families. What I would LOVE to see happen is for normal, loving, supportive people to show up in such great numbers that the Westborough crowd is so small by comparison that they are not even recognized.
