TaBoo's First Amendment to the Constitution

http://tabootenente.tblog.com
from JoeUser Forums
You silly, silly people. What have you done now? All of your focus on saving poor, defenseless American flags has blinded the educational system and warped your children's sense of values. They all believe that killing Iraqi civilians is freedom, while seeing a blurry, surgery-enhanced nipple is worse than. . ..No. It's so bad that there's nothing worse, anywhere.

BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer reports that "more than one in three high school students said it [the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States] goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."

There's no consistency. You want guns to protect yourself, and such a right was written into the Constitution so you could take up arms against an oppressive government. You want freedom to practice your religion, and such a right was written into the Constitution so your government would not have power over your god--I'm sure you no longer remember, but this was most likely the reason your ancestors tamed the untameable seas. You want the freedom of speech, because. . .because. . ..

Do not worry. I will tell you why. You want the freedom of speech because the freedom of speech provides for every freedom you enjoy. Freedom to speak your part returns your humanity to you. Without this freedom, there are no freedoms left.

Here's the crux: many silly, silly people believe that in order to show your patriotism, you must cede this right to your government. In fact, the American incarnation of Patriotism has perverted everything that made this country great. There is nothing wrong with loving your country: if your country is great, then love it, respect it, and bring your country flowers every week or so before she forgets about you. But if you think blind support of your government is what this country is about, then you are one hundred percent incorrect, and may which ever deity you believe in have mercy on whatever you believe drives the subatomic neural processing of your being.

You silly sod. Your Founders wrote the Amendments so you could be safe from your government. Burning a flag does not make you a traitor. Writing an anti-policy article does not make you a traitor. However, your children think that it might, because of all your gesticulating and your cursing of those hairy, hippie-pinkos. Yes, the superbowl half-time show is a public, family forum. Yes, you are not supposed to see a nipple in a public, family forum. Nevertheless, please be careful when you demand stringent censorship in front of your children.

Which is worse: if your eight year-old son spies a nano-second of nipple and then steps out back to torch a flag (in the official flag-torching manner prescribed by the United States Fire Safety Squad); or if your eight year-old son becomes a fifteen year-old son who has no use for the freedom of speech?

So I'd like to propose an Amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment will allow for your inalienable right to speak your mind, your right to not have your thoughts detailed and copyedited by the government, and to burn a flag if it gets soiled.

Does this sound in any way familiar? Because it probably will not to your children. Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum
politics
29,978 views 55 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
What they don't realize is,I WILL speak freely, whether the government sanctions it or not.The First Amendment just saves some ridiculous court costs where I and several others are concerned
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've always said that it is just as constitutional and patriotic to protest a war (or other government action) as to fight in it.

You are right, blind support is not what patriotism is about, but then again, neither is blind dissent.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well said, Gideon.

I'll be honest. It does not surprise me in the least that highschoolers know less than they should about the First Amendment; but the fact that 50% believe the government should have editing and/or sanctioning power over what you say or write strikes me as unbelievable. Stodgy old codgers like me are supposed to be cynical, not sixteen year old children!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
i agree, ted. support for the ideals rather than the government is what patriotism is about, and it should never be blind.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh thats it!

Send them back in time, Middle Ages...

One Week...

That'll change their minds
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " -Theodore Roosevelt

Looks like Teddy Roosevelt has got your back. Oh yeah, and me too. Actually, I was once talking to a friend and I happened to mention my opinion about burning the flag (they have a right to do it) and he started into this whole huge rant about how it was treason. So there's one real-life example of that whole youth thing.

Yay First Amendment!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
nicely said nj.

it seems to me that that there is something new about this wave of "patriotism". maybe it's just part of the highly polarized, highly charged political environment, or maybe not. people want censorship, they want some definition of decency.

but it seems so inconsistent. people feel it is important to fight for freedom, but they want people to discard freedom. the fact that highschoolers do not value the 1st amendment highly strikes me as odd. why don't they? is it just because the schools aren't teaching them, or is it because of this wave of "patriotism"?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
TaBoo, you hit the nail on the head. Blind, jingoistic patriotism is not only unconstitutional, it is also counterproductive, which is what you pointed out. It's really a shame that kids are thinking that government should have edit authority. That's very scary, and certainly points to the right-swinging pendulum we see in American society today.

I do agree that blind dissent is also bad. But, I'd venture a guess that most dissent is very far from blind. Dissent usually results from increased education and awareness, and more knowledge than not, which is what actually supports such dissent. It's a willingness to admit government's mistakes when our government refuses to admit its own mistakes. Dissent is healthy to a democracy. It keeps government honest. Or so it should.

But, then again, and obviously, I am speaking from my dissent perspective of being against the Iraq invasion, against institutionalizing religion, against buying reporters to cover fake news stories to support government agendas, against trashing the environment so corporate buddies can become ridher than god, against cuts in medicaide and other health coverages so pharmaceutical buddies can become richer than god. etc. and against our government's refusal to admit that it created one of modern history's biggest blunders, that being the invasion of Iraq. Of course, every step towards Iraq's recovery is good news, but tell that to the families of the dead and dying, and the thousands upon thousands of the maimed. But, I digress.......

Dissent is patriotic.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

i dont know if you've seen larry kuperman's excellent article ('secularism & morality) Link which, in turn, includes a link to an article outside ju called 'facism anyone?' Link.  the author of the latter asserts that a study of 20th century fascist states (nazi germany, fascist italy, franco's spain, salazar's portugal, papadapoulos' greece, pinochet's chile and suharto's indonesia) reveals 14 common threads, the first of which is this:


1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.


both articles are more than well worth the time it takes to check em out--as is yours.   good work taboo!

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do agree that blind dissent is also bad. But, I'd venture a guess that most dissent is very far from blind. Dissent usually results from increased education and awareness, and more knowledge than not, which is what actually supports such dissent. It's a willingness to admit government's mistakes when our government refuses to admit its own mistakes. Dissent is healthy to a democracy. It keeps government honest. Or so it should.


If your are talking dissent based on heart felt and firm conviction, you would be right. However, for many, protests are either just a fun day in the park, or worse yet, a job. I've done medic support at protests and demonstrations for everything from presidential candidate speech rallies to "Gay Pride". Not being particularly busy standby assignments (usually), I have had the chance to talk to people from all sorts of political and social backgrounds.

What I find as I ply my people watching hobby is that most people at the political rallies do not know that much about the details of the issue they happen to be demonstrating for, or agaisn't. They're either there basically because they are "for" or "against" the issue in general, or (as I have heard countless times), "it's just cool to be here". I have to admit, it usually is pretty cool to be there, the party atmosphere, the sunshine, the energy... and oh yeah, the speaches... sometimes people even stop to pay attention once in awhile. Of course that is far different if it's a campaign rally than an issue based demonstration, especially if there is a major candidate there, then the speaches are listened to by at least half the group.

For many of the people there, the dissent is not only blind, it's deaf and dumb too (and I have found that in rallies for either side of the aisle. ;~D

But, then again, and obviously, I am speaking from my dissent perspective of being against the Iraq invasion, against institutionalizing religion, against buying reporters to cover fake news stories to support government agendas, against trashing the environment so corporate buddies can become ridher than god, against cuts in medicaide and other health coverages so pharmaceutical buddies can become richer than god. etc. and against our government's refusal to admit that it created one of modern history's biggest blunders, that being the invasion of Iraq. Of course, every step towards Iraq's recovery is good news, but tell that to the families of the dead and dying, and the thousands upon thousands of the maimed. But, I digress.......

Dissent is patriotic.


I can't even say I disagree with you on some of these issues (even if I would disagree with the rhetoric you choose to employ), but the one part with which I will stand proudly and firmly with you is...

True, heartfelt Dissent is patriotic!!

But so is true, heartfelt support!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.


Thanks for pointing out some pretty decent articles on the subject. I have a shorter, more succinct definition of "fascism":

Legislated Patriotism
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
i just read the two articles you linked to, kingbee. both were very good.

social nationalism is always the risk when patriotism becomes blind and supersedes humanity. it bothers me that politicians are so willing to stoke such patriotism. then i say to myself, "of course a polician will do anything and everything". then i say, "the reason they do it is because we want them to do it."

if you look at germany post wwI, it is easy to see why germans would be looking for some concept to move them. the rest of europe declared germany the villains, and took their recompense from germany's moral and financial banks. germany was bankrupt in every way. when hitler began to speak, to suggest that they were not at fault, that there were weaknesses in their midst that they were not responsible for, people wanted to listen so badly.

and now, when we find it hard to believe what the media says, what the politicians say, even what the history books say, we want someone to speak in a way that moves us and creates meaning for us.

facism is about absolutist stances, about the ultimate definings of "us" and "them". every ideology defines these groups as part of an overarching cosmology. in social nationalism, the nation's borders become the first checkpoint. in germany, racial purity became a way of identifying your "brothers".

the doi seemed to be trying to eliminate the "us and them", though there were grave inconsistencies in that document, too. but every man having "inalienable rights" appeared to be a powerful piece of language that might have moved beyond simple rhetoric.

right now in the usa, i think people are looking for a resurrection of purpose and meaning. communism, hippies, liberals, conservatives. . .each label denotes a "them" that we can fight against. as we speak, those who do not agree with our policies are either traitors or terrorists. u.s. citizens speaking their minds must be traitors; others must be terrorists. when the fervor of purpose hits there's no room for identifying "differently-minded compatriots" or even finding a better way of dealing with adversity--because it devalues the purpose we are finding in these causes.

make the world safe for democracy. it's the most ironic of propaganda statements. thanks again, tj, for the t.r. quote above. if we looked at it logically, i think we would see that the 1st amendment is the natural opposite to facism, and the no.1 definition of u.s. patriotism. it's who we are.

why don't our kids know it, though?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most kids (and even most adults) I talk to have little idea of what a "right" is, so maybe we need to start there before wondering why they don't understand the what each of those "rights" mean. For the matter, the word "freedom" seems fuzzy also. Most don't see anything past, "doing anything I want, when I want, simply because I want to do it".
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #8 By: dabe - 2/2/2005 5:59:51 AM I do agree that blind dissent is also bad.


Then how do you account for your blind self?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
A few ideas for why students feel the government should intervene in the freedom of the press:

~Reporters investigating stories without leaving the bar stool...
~Reporters being on both the staff of newspapers and candidate's campaign staff...
~An almost constant flow of cases where reporters made up stories...
~An almost constant flow of cases where reporters kept stories out of print...
~Ignored evidence...
~Made up evidence...

We should have the kids ask Dan Rather and Michael Kranish why?? ;~D
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
well, journalists should be held accountable for representing either fabricated or unsubstantiated as fact; and biased journalism, unless noted, is not good journalism. government-regulated content is no answer though, and im sure neither the kerry or bush squad would make good editors.

but who gets to determine quality, obscenity? on the one hand, protecting your children is important; on the other, i am sure you don't want me to determine for you what constitutes decency (i'll do a good job, though--i promise!). obviously if i shouldnt make these determinations, neither should a partisan government.

hence, the 1st amendment. the idea, like the right to bear arms, is to protect the individual from an unfair, unrepresentative government. the government apparently is by, for, and of the people, or some such, and when it loses this perspective, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to stand up for inalienable rights. without the 1st amendment, a democracy is not possible.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then how do you account for your blind self?


Fuck you
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then how do you account for your blind self?


To put it more eloquently, (unless it was a joke, which I suspect it was) that was uncalled for.

thanks again, tj, for the t.r. quote above.


No problem, if you want some other quotes I've got an article with them here Link
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #18 By: dabe - 2/2/2005 10:19:30 PM
Then how do you account for your blind self?


Fuck you


That was totally uncalled for you ignorant jerk.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
man. what happened to this thread?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm sorry TaBoo. You should ask drmiler why he had to toss insults at me. ParaTed may not agree with me, and I with him, but we are capable of reasonable debates on the issue.

drmiler does not add to the discourse at all. He just takes it upon himself to toss insults and bullshit. As you can see, he otherwise added nothing. No, NJforever, it was no joke. He called me "blind" because of my liberalism and rather outspoken disdain for dubya & co., and to which I responded accordingly. Again, he otherwise added nothing to the conversation. He's a prime example of blind patriotism, jingoism personified, which ironically, is the topic at hand.

And, I really detest that stupid borderline iliterate sob.
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
Taboo, when you first wrote it, I thought "we can't really be this stupid, can we?" Now, after one day in grade 12 history, I realize that we are. So far, it's only the first day, and F9/11 is a media source, and "we really need a dictatorship to get things done around here that are good for the country. Until they start going nuts with power. Then we'll assassinate them or something" rrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttttt......I'll agree when you can get Jack Layton and Ralph Klein to agree on "what's good for the country" (for those of you unfamiliar with Canadian politics, that's pretty much saying when hell freezes over).
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
dabe: ive read dr. miller's comments other places. i often strongly disagree with him; nevertheless, he makes insightful comments that i usually find interesting to discuss. his comment here definitely seemed to be unprovoked, though i know you two tend to go at it on a regular basis. still, feel free to argue with him again here; i would just prefer if you would attempt to keep it kosher for the public.

dr. miller: i think you understand, as well.

latour: i very much appreciate your comment. are you canadian, and/or currently living in canada? with the ridiculous amount of news sources these days (which, in general, i believe to be a great thing) it is hard to find an objective take on what happens north of the border (or within the border, for that matter). do you have a source that you use?

the two main problems that i see are these:

1)the first and most significant is that it seems that students today do not fully understand the implications of our 1st amendment, for whatever reason. these students haven't conceived of what "freedom" might be like without this amendment. in my mind, there's a very good reason this amendment is the first.

2)the second is that we have a problem with the media. there's a heartless rush to uncover the most current and sensational story. sometimes it seems that the rush supersedes any need to uncover truth--as long as the headline is catchy. but i would never suggest that the government play any role in monitoring or moderating the so-called information. journalistic integrity is perhaps the largest responsibility the media has to maintain. obviously, everyone makes mistakes, even journalists; still, when a mistake is made, the media forum that hosted the mistake must be accountable. this accounting somewhat successfully takes place, i would say, because of the wealth of interested and competitive news sources, that are only too excited to identify an error in the enemy camp. it's a system of checks and balances. even so, any self-aware individual who has opened a history text should know to read/listen to- everything with very large granuals of salt.

tbt
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

man. what happened to this thread?


Taboo,


My guess is, a few folks decided to test your commitment to free speech...lol