A little something appeared in my Twitter feed that left me wondering if some people actually read the Constitution or if they’re just going with whatever version of it they’ve heard from their favorite pundit.
Dad?
(Sorry, for a second there I thought I was a child being spoken to by an authority figure in the context of a situation wherein I was to be seen, but not heard; or what my dad called his “This is not a discussion. I speak, you listen, the end” lecture.)
The Twitter message refers to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution - one of the country’s most misunderstood amendments of late. It seems like a lot of people have recently taken the “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech” part of the amendment to mean “I get to say anything I want and you don’t get to say jack shit about it!” (Maniacal laughter optional)
The tweet’s author offers no details about how he was “not allowed to discuss or criticise,” but since he goes on to reflect such a gross misunderstanding of the amendment, one wonders if it was not so much that he was forbidden to speak, but that he instead found himself on the receiving end of his own medicine.
Freedom of speech means the right to express ourselves without fear of going to jail for what we’ve said. Freedom of speech is not the right to a feedback-free audience. If one desires the unconditional right to speak without consequence, one can of course seek out the position of dictator in any number of countries throughout the world. I hear the positions pay well and you get to scream “Fire!” whenever you want.
Just as freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from speech. If you say something, anything someone else disagrees with, doesn’t like, or feels offended or hurt by – well, guess what? You’re not constitutionally protected from getting a response you disagree with, don’t like or feel offended or hurt by, you big freaking baby.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Sommerfeldt
Nice. I like that - I've thought that many times, but I just haven't been able to put my frustration into such an eloquent little snippet of text as you have.
Thanks.
2 - jeannie danna
Diana,
Just as freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion
If I see your meaning here, you are saying that, one or all religions are being imposed on Americans?
Which ones and how?
3 - handyguy
And freedom of speech exists to protect unpopular speech. There's little protection required for speech that most people like or agree with.
4 - Dan(Miller)
Excellent article. It must be, since I agree.
However, it is not necessary to become a dictator to avoid the expression of different and occasionally unpleasant views; just go into a sound-proofed closet and talk to yourself.
In honor of those who claim that their freedoms of speech have been violated by the expression of opposing (and occasionally impolite) views, I have a suggestion: Let's have a National Do Something Stupid Day. It could be fun. It might even stimulate the economy a (very) little bit.
Dan(Miller)
5 - Diana Hartman
jeannie, I'm not saying any religion is being imposed on Americans. I'm saying no one is constitutionally protected from the existence of religion.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Diana -
You’re not constitutionally protected from getting a response you disagree with, don’t like or feel offended or hurt by, you big freaking baby.
Quoted for Absolute Truth!
Every once in a while one runs across a brilliantly-succinct quote that answers a whole plethora of idiocy by The Other Side, whoever that "Other Side" might be at the moment. Yours is one such quote. Well said!
7 - roger nowosielski
I've heard it on Glenn Beck's show - hence the source may well be unreliable - that the original intent of the separation of Church and State had to do with protecting religion from the State (rather than the other way around, which is the usually given interpretation).
The idea was that the original states, each had an "official religion," so to speak, and that the federal government was thus prohibited (according to the presumed intent) to dictate otherwise. Of course, the dissenting individuals were always free to move on and leave to where they'd be more comfortable.
An intriguing idea but, as I said, I'm not certain as to its veracity.
Perhaps Dan Miller or another constitutional scholar might shed some light.
8 - Arch Conservative
We're supposed to ignore the feelings of those that oppose the ground zero mosque but yet take into account the feelings of muslims when an unflattering image of mohammad is to be published as a cartoon in a newspaper?
The NY times was only too happy to join the rest of the liberal jet set in celebrating "piss christ" and even went so far as to compare the christians that objected it to nazis but when it came time to publish a Mohammaed cartoon they refrained claiming it was offensive to muslims.
It's getting harder and harder to wade through the vat of hypocritical bullshit that is the American left.
9 - zingzing
so... we're aren't supposed to give a damn about islam's feelings, but we are supposed to give a damn about anti-islamic feelings? gotcha.
10 - Arch Conservative
[edited] You either publish "piss christ" and the mohammed cartoon or you don't publish either.
11 - roger nowosielski
Archie, you're stepping over the line. I do not want to see you banned.
12 - handyguy
Both "Piss Christ" and the Muhammad cartoon drew death threats, with the difference that the latter was carried out. That, rather than left/right leanings or 'political correctness' has led to caution about reprinting the cartoons.
13 - zingzing
archie: ok then... so, since the cartoons were published, then the mosque must go up! your logic here is unmistakable.
14 - Dr Dreadful
I don't think Diana's twitterer misunderstands the First Amendment at all. I think he/she is just having a saracstic gripe about political correctness, whose opponents often complain that they're "not allowed" to say certain things any more.
But PC is just a social convention. It has no real power. We "agree" that it's a desirable form of behaviour, just as we "agree" not to stand closer than three feet away from a stranger or pick our noses in job interviews.
You can't force someone to be PC; at least, in this country, you can't without royally pissing off a bunch of dead guys in powdered wigs.
15 - zingzing
but don't worry, archie. if you get really pissed off about the mosque, they'll realize that there's no sense in antagonizing you and will refrain from plopping a second mosque on top of the first.
16 - Alan Kurtz
Roger Nowosielski (#12), I see you've joined your friend Mrs. Danna in campaigning for the unpaid position of BC's resident censor. Maybe the two of you can split the duties equally, each working a 12-hour shift to vigilantly police Blogcritics against the ever-present threat of political incorrectness. Good luck with that.
17 - zingzing
thank you for protecting our first amendment rights, alan. it's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it around here.
18 - roger nowosielski
You're reading it wrong, Alan. Me and Archie are having an "online relationship," and you can read it any way you like. So no, I wasn't censoring Archie, only providing a friendly advice.
You should know better than to take the form of words alone and make a go of it apart from context. Well, now you know the context.
Any other beef?
19 - Clavos
I was taught its purpose is to protect the citizens from having a state religion imposed on us or being prevented from practicing a religion, so it protects both non-believers and believers. The actual wording is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens from the government.
20 - Clavos
..and boy, do we need that protection -- especially these days...
21 - roger nowosielski
zing,
I don't know whether you're being sarcastic in your last comment or not. But just to set you straight, I am all for Archie's freedom to call anyone a moron, including yourself. I was only alerting Archie to certain realities which, First Amendment notwithstanding, have a way of trumping our constitutionally-given rights.
(I see that you're still mad at me for one of my comments.)
22 - jeannie danna
Clavos,
We needed just as much, if not more protection during the last administration.
23 - roger nowosielski
#20
But the wording does not preclude the interpretation suggested above, concerning states' right. Congress means here "federal government," I should think, legislating over the entire land. It's also debatable whether "the citizen" was the point of focus and the intended object of constitutional protections. I'd be inclined to think the states needed the protection from federal interference, and the business of protecting state citizenry was, for the most part, left to the states themselves. (Of course, if some individuals would find their state oppressive, they could, hypothetically, look for greener pastures elsewhere, at which point the constitutional rights respecting the individual might kick in as well.) So perhaps we're guilty of "modernizing" what was originally a historically-conditioned concept, a fairly common thing people do.
But again, I have no stake in this, just thought it a rather interesting take. Again, perhaps Dan Miller or Dave Nalle, once he put on the historian's hat, might shed some light.
24 - roger nowosielski
Well, zing, to refresh your memory, some of you guys were compared to cockroaches.
I begged to disagree, if only for it being a false analogy. Cockroaches are known to shun light and run for their lives into darkness. But you are attracted to light. But here comes the zinger: I also said, "you don't know when to quit."
25 - Mark
Dunno Rog, the Con might benefit from being altered. Did wonders for one of my pit bulls.