Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Not Free Unless the Courts Agree!


A recent Supreme Court ruling affirming free speech rights in a controversial case, one pitting freedom of religion against freedom of speech, comes as no surprise, but what was surprising was the one judicial hold out, the lone dissenter, associate justice Samuel Alito.

You remember Justice Alito, the lone dissenter again (ostensibly, that is), during one of Obama's presidential speeches before congress, shaking his head and possibly mouthing the words, "not true," to a statement Obama made expressing disapproval of a recent Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to that controversial free-speech ruling, we can all rest easy tonight snug in the assurance that our free speech rights will continue unabated and untarnished.

Corporations can continue, without fear of reprisal, to spend massive amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections and the viability of certain legislation; Sara Palin, the run-away Alaskan governor, can continue to insist that President Obama "pals around with terrorists;"[1] Mike Huckabee, an ordained minister, can continue to say falsely (forgetting: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.") that president Obama grew up in Kenya and was heavily influenced by his father and grandfather who opposed British imperialism;[2] and Michele Bachmann, the flower of American patriotism, can continue to cast the president as un-American, and his administration as "gangster-"like.[3]

Of course they do it, because there's a segment of the population that thrives on this mendacious fare, and upon whom much of it is heavily lavished: it sells millions of books, if you're Huckabee, Palin, and George Bush;[4] sets you up as a Tea Party Caucus leader of a rather "anemic" group, if you're Michelle Bachmann[5]; and puts millions of dollars into political war chests, if you're Scott Walker, or a growing number of other politicos, Scott Brown, for example, vying to be the political darlings of the Koch brothers.[6]

Rights are rights, but oftentimes they conflict. For example, when does our right to express our religious beliefs, vouchsafed by the same document that guarantees our freedom to speak, takes precedence, if, and when, those rights clash, as in this case? To my knowledge there's no hierarchy of rights. As such, they all stand firmly on an equal footing, one independent of the other.

If we take reckless liberties with the right to speak (in this case in writing or print, or on a sign), we may be accused of libel, brought into court and sued. This is a limit to free speech that all courts recognize and support. But since the decedent in this case, once dead, has no reputation to protect, and, therefore, cannot suffer an infliction where damages may be assessed, the case is moot.

If we take reckless liberties, as did the Westboro Pastor Fred Phelps and other church members, that encroach upon a person's right to bury a loved one according to the precepts of his religion, then that expression is protected, all the way to the Supreme Court:

"In a case pitting free-speech versus privacy rights, the nation's highest court held that the picketing at a private funeral and even hurtful protest messages were protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

"The decision by an 8-1 vote was the latest in a long line of Supreme Court rulings that free-speech rights protected even outrageous or offensive conduct, including the burning of the American flag.

"The ruling was a defeat for Albert Snyder, the father of a Marine killed in Iraq in 2006. He sued after the family's funeral service at a Roman Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland, drew unwanted protests by members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas."[7]

Although one of the pillars of our democracy has been strengthened by this ruling, not all are satisfied with the outcome, and have been rather vocal with their opposition. Under the title, Schieffer: First Amendment Rights Gone Too Far?, Bob Schieffer gives expression to my view as well:

"(CBS News) I've spent most of my life defending the First Amendment. But when the Supreme Court ruled last week that it gave a church group the right to picket a dead soldier's funeral with signs that said, "God Hates You" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," I was appalled.

"The group believes our soldiers are dying because God is punishing America for tolerating gay people. That anyone would have the audacity to claim knowledge of God's reasoning is ridiculous, but here's what I don't understand.

"The courts have long held that free speech can be limited in rare circumstances. We can't yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire, because it would endanger public safety - people might be trampled in the chaos.

"The First Amendment has done just fine with that limit.

"But if that is so, why isn't public safety endangered when a mob hurls brutal abuse at an innocent citizen who could be scarred with severe and lasting emotional damage?

"We must obey the law, because we are a nation of laws. But whatever the laws, what these military families have endured is not right, and every community must now move quickly to establish buffer zones (which are legal) to keep these protesters as far as possible from military funerals.

"When there are those among us so selfish and cruel they are willing to use one of our most cherished freedoms to intrude on the grief of parents who have lost a child just to promote their cause, we must do everything legally possible to deter them.

"The court has ruled, but the effort to protect these families must go on."
[8]


[1]"Palin said today, according to a transcript distributed by the campaign. 'These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do — as the greatest force for good in the world.

"'This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country,' Palin concluded, in the hardest shot of the statement."

[2]"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says President Barack Obama's childhood in Kenya shaped his world view -- despite the fact that Obama did not visit Kenya until he was in his 20s.

"The potential Republican presidential candidate told New York radio station WOR that Obama was raised in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather.

"Actually, Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya whom he would barely know. He spent his youth in Hawaii and Indonesia and did not visit his father's homeland until 1987, well after his father's death."

[3] "MR. GREGORY: You, you've referred to the Obama administration as a gangster government. You've said that this president has anti-American views. Do you believe that still?

"REP. BACHMANN: I believe that the actions of this government have, have been emblematic of ones that have not been based on true American values. Just consider Obamacare. Over 900 waivers have been given out to unions and protected special interests that are linked to the president. That's not right."

[4] "'America by Heart,' Palin's new memoir, has logged disappointing receipts since it officially went on sale late last month, publishing sources say. Although the book is second on the New York Times bestseller list this week (behind former president George W. Bush's memoir, "Decision Points") , its publisher, HarperCollins, hasn't ordered a second printing - a sign that sales haven't been overly brisk.

"By contrast, Palin's first book, "Going Rogue," became the second-fastest-selling political book in history upon its release last year, according to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks industry sales. It went into a second printing three days after its release and went on to sell 2.2 million copies in hardcover, according to the publisher."

[5] "That is pretty anemic! In fact, it means that Tea Party Caucus ranks have actually diminished under the "leadership" of Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06), which is really remarkable given the constant fluffing the Teabagger contingent gets from the national press. Seriously, who would have guessed that there would be fewer members of the caucus in this Congress versus last?"

[6] "At the public dedication of MIT’s David H. Koch Integrative Cancer Institute last Friday, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) effusively thanked conservative billionaire David Koch for supporting his election in 2010 and made a plea for help in his re-election campaign next year."
[Watch exclusive video here.]

[7]

[8]

13 comments:

Greg L said...

BD,

I just lost a rather lengthy comment here when I changed google accounts. Even though I know that's happened to many, that doesn't lessen my frustration.

Anyway, the Westboro people are crazy and I agree with Schieffer. People need to do whatever they must to keep these people at bay.

As to Palin, Bachman and Huckabee, they represent little more than an idiot diversion to pollute the nation's political discourse. Huckabee has appropriated a page from Gingrich's book with the Kenyan references. I suspect that they've formed a focus group to determine which words would cause the most visceral emotional response to Obama and apparently, "Kenyan" works better than "Muslim". I expect we'll begin hearing that reference more frequently.

This little troika plays to what the American public has been socialized to accept as information; the titillating, trite and stupid. When you're playing to those things, truth or some level of thoughtful analysis is out the door. Unfortunately, that overlay extends to our politics as well. And that's the main reason why America is in a whole heap of trouble.

Greg L said...

Forgot to check the box for follow-up comments

Black Diaspora said...

"I just lost a rather lengthy comment here when I changed google accounts."

My loss. It would have been great to read your first thoughts on this.

Sometimes I remember and sometimes I don't, to save my comment before publishing. I have lost some of my best comments that way. :)

"As to Palin, Bachman and Huckabee, they represent little more than an idiot diversion to pollute the nation's political discourse."

I keep thinking: What does that say about those Americans to whom their remarks are directed?

We're all being played, forced to take sides in a game that's rigged against our better interest.

We're so busy playing to win the game for our side that we don't notice the other game, the more serious game, that's being played in the background, yet in plain view, which has graver consequences if we lose.

I'm hoping that what is going on in Wisconsin will awaken people to the real threat to our democracy.

For too long too many people have allowed the purveyors of fear, hatred, and bigotry (another deadly triad) to manipulate national and local events, and to consume the national dialog.

"Unfortunately, that overlay extends to our politics as well. And that's the main reason why America is in a whole heap of trouble."

And I see no way to extricate ourselves short of scrapping the whole thing and starting over again.

Black Diaspora said...

@Greg L

If you haven't seen the video with Scott Brown appealing to one of the Koch brothers (begging actually) to continue funding his run for the senate in 2012, click on [6] in the reference section of my blog entry.

It's the video after the Waxman one.

Greg L said...

BD,

I just watched that video and it's disgusting. Brown is like a little kid in class raising his hand so he can be called on by the teacher. Koch is just sitting back and watching the "pupil" try to get his attention. It's similar to the spoof pulled on the Wisconsin governor as well where the guy calls up pretending to be one of the Koch's.

In many ways, this isn't so much about campaign financing so much as climbing the career ladder. These guys know that if they do the bidding of their backers, a place is going to be found for them even if they happen to lose an election. The crosshairs in the middle of all of this is our democracy as this situation leaves those with money in total control and a radical departure from past policies is not going to occur-- and radical departures from a lot of stuff is precisely what's needed right now.

Black Diaspora said...

"I just watched that video and it's disgusting."

My reaction as well. The power elites are in the driver's seat at the moment, and they want to keep it that way.

I watched a video recently. Apparently G.W. Bush was at a GOP fundraiser. He said half jokingly and half seriously, and I paraphrase:

"There're the haves and the have mores. Some people call them the power elite, but we call them our base."

That statement says it all.

"The crosshairs in the middle of all of this is our democracy as this situation leaves those with money in total control and a radical departure from past policies is not going to occur...."

So true. Our democracy is under assault, both inside and outside our government.

The conflation of the two forces almost assures its defeat. I'm going to blog about this in the near future.

The Republican party is on a trajectory that it plotted years ago. What we're seeing now is a fulfillment of an agenda--radical to be sure--which, if successful, will further their conservative-Utopian vision for America.

Blinders Off said...

Hi BD,

Good post...when you have some time check this video out or better yet order it from Amazon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho

Black Diaspora said...

@Blinders Off: "Good post...when you have some time check this video out...."

Thanks Blinders Off. I'll check out the video.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]Corporations can continue, without fear of reprisal, to spend massive amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections and the viability of certain legislation; Sara Palin, the run-away Alaskan governor, can continue to insist that President Obama "pals around with terrorists;"[1] Mike Huckabee, an ordained minister, can continue to say falsely (forgetting: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.") that president Obama grew up in Kenya and was heavily influenced by his father and grandfather who opposed British imperialism;[2] and Michele Bachmann, the flower of American patriotism, can continue to cast the president as un-American, and his administration as "gangster-"like.[3]
[/quote]

Black Diaspora:

You have no idea how valuable reading the words of:

* You
* Filled Negro
* Chauncey DeVega

assist me in understanding the Progressive-Fundamentalist mind.

I mean - here we are as a "Black diaspora", digesting the reality that the US Census and the imposition of certain economic theories have meant - and yet, for some inexplicable reason SARAH PALIN and other favorite targets appear in your commentary.

SERIOUS MAN, Brother to Brother - help me to understand. Here I am, reading the article from journalist Jack White in which he accepts the justification of Obama for bombing Libya. The first several paragraphs of the article ARE NOT focused on:

* Obama
* The People Of Libya
* The American Imperialism in Africa

but instead SARAH PALIN!!!!


BRO!!! Sarah Palin just got her PASSPORT 2 years ago AND NEVER EVEN SET FOOT ON THE MOTHERLAND.

Is there any sort of IDEOLOGICAL filtering that takes place among Progressive-Fundamentalists that has you all to "pull up"?

Black Diaspora said...

@CF: "assist me in understanding the Progressive-Fundamentalist mind"

progressive: "A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government."

fundamentalist: "Since the late 1970s fundamentalists have embraced electoral and legislative politics and the 'electronic church' in their fight against perceived threats to traditional religious values: so-called secular humanism, Communism, feminism, legalized abortion, homosexuality, and the ban on school prayer."

The conflation of the two terms creates a confusion as to your meaning. Can you elaborate on how you're using them?

Nevertheless, I'm afraid I don't fall within a tidy niche, and for that reason alone you'll never fully understand me.

Sarah Palin, as well as the others I've mentioned, are symptomatic of what's wrong with this country.

Rather than pursuing a "progressive" agenda as defined above, they opportunistically cater to an ideology that advances their own narrow, self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing cause, at the expense of this country.

We both know that the Republican party has one goal, and one goal only, and that is one-party rule.

It will fail.

"Is there any sort of IDEOLOGICAL filtering that takes place among Progressive-Fundamentalists that has you all to 'pull up'?"

I'm not following you here. I can't speak for all progressives (In truth, I'm not one actually, but something beyond that definition.), but I have no "ideological filtering."

Ideology is limiting, and will, over time, self-destruct. No ideology can embrace all life situations that might arise, and will be seen as impotent when potency is required.

If I were to adopt an "ideology" and a "politics" it would be Life itself, and, secondarily, a maintenance and protection of all that which manifests it--a concept I'm sure that's too radical even for you.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]The conflation of the two terms creates a confusion as to your meaning. Can you elaborate on how you're using them?
[/quote]

My dear friend Black Diaspora:

Your closed mind has you unable to accept the clear meaning of the word in question.

A "Progressive-Fundamentalist" is merely a person who sees his IDEOLOGY as the fix for all that ails society. NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY is acceptable.

Even when there is a "Mission Accomplished Zone" (See PBS "Need To Know" on Camden and other failed cities) in which his ideology is the last man standing yet fails to deliver - the unanticipated consequences are blamed on EXTERNAL conservative forces. This merely keeps the masses looking PAST the institution that they just took control over, engaging them into a perpetual outward expansion - benefiting the POLITICAL joint-venture partner who receives the benefit of your grievances.

BD you set up a condition in which YOUR ideology is the answer and thus you set forth a "Permanent Struggle" against an ADVERSARY that is always inches away from your grasp.

Constructive Feedback said...

Black Diaspora:

I have learned that I should not hope to change your view that Sarah Palin (and her ilk) IS the Problem With America (and that people with YOUR IDEOLOGY just happen to be the solution).

Instead, BD, I see that there is a need to define some UNIVERSAL PERMANENT INTERESTS by which both of us can SUBMIT TO as a means of appraising the EFFECTIVENESS of our competing ideological tool sets.

I am less troubled that Black Progressive-Fundamentalist blogs focus on Sarah Palin and the line up of Fox News and Republican threats (go look at Field Negro's blog today)than I am that their MODEL OF THE WORLD is so askew from the force that ACTUALLY BEAR DOWN UPON OUR COMMUNITY.

The fact that they have no interest in constructing an REPRESENTATIVE model which defines their management priorities in their efforts to correct their course merely shows that they are more interested in promoting their IDEOLOGY than they are in course correction.

What does the new US Census numbers documenting the migration patterns of Black people say to you? They are moving out of the 'mission accomplished cities' into areas where their ideological enemies dominate the scene.

Black Diaspora said...

"A 'Progressive-Fundamentalist' is merely a person who sees his IDEOLOGY as the fix for all that ails society. NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY is acceptable."

If your definition holds up, can we presuppose a counterweight to the people you've identified--say, the existence of Conservative-Fundamentalists?

"BD you set up a condition in which YOUR ideology is the answer and thus you set forth a "Permanent Struggle" against an ADVERSARY that is always inches away from your grasp."

I've said this before in response to a similar claim: I have no "ideology." I have no "adversaries." I'm in no "struggle."

"Instead, BD, I see that there is a need to define some UNIVERSAL PERMANENT INTERESTS by which both of us can SUBMIT TO as a means of appraising the EFFECTIVENESS of our competing ideological tool sets."

What would be the point: There are no political, social or economic answers for what ails society or the world for that matter.

Anyone who tells you that there are human solutions to human problems haven't examined our collective history over our many millenia.

Here's what I advocate: Since real solutions continue to evade us, let's do as little harm to ourselves and our planet as is possible. We can do that by making life, and all that supports life our primary aim, our main cause, and our chief occupation.

To do less will render this planet inhospitable to life, and future generations will suffer greatly for our ineptness, and indifference.

Can we at least agree on this set of "ideological tools"? It's the "course correction" that will assure our own--now becoming--very fragile survival as a species, and preserve the planet for all life forms.

We're doing enormous damage to the planet. Unless that is stopped, we won't have a planet upon which we can continue our evolution--a world that, I might add, is perfect for that purpose.