Posts Tagged ‘Freedom of speech’
The ‘ism’ elixir?
“Bad officials are elected by
good citizens who do not vote.”
George Jean Nathan
American drama critic and newspaper editor
I watched a 1948 cartoon produced by Harding College, “Make Mine Freedom,” which tells the story of Ism elixir. If you have already viewed this, my apologies. If not, let me share the tale of Ism.
What is public and what is private?
Does the public have a right to know everything? Does freedom of the press have any limits? Is anything private? Is everything fair game? How might Tiger Woods answer these questions? “Yes, no, no, yes.” Moreover, these questions have little to do with any claimed right to privacy, and all to do with the Constitution.
Religion, politics, and the First Amendment
How do we reconcile religion, politics and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says in part, ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…?” Did they only mean that government cannot get involved in religion or did they also mean that religion cannot get involved in government? Did they intend we remove our faith and its values from political discussions, from political opinions? Would this be a reasonable expectation?
Rights and responsibilities of free press
The first amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press . . .” Conspicuously absent is mention of any responsibility accompanying this right, although Benjamin Franklin, in the Apology for Printers published in 1731, suggested there were responsibilities saying, “I have also always refus’d to print such things as might do real injury to any Person . . .”
Even military critics enjoy free speech
Thomas Jefferson said, “My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy!” Proof of his statement echoes from the Berkeley, California city council chambers. They approved sending a letter to the Marine Corp Recruiting office informing the marines they were “not welcome” in Berkeley. The council added, “If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.” During that council meeting they also derided the marines with statements like “trained killers” and “the president’s own gangsters.” How should we respond to this anti-military, anti-American behavior? Is it acceptable for elected officials to behave this way? Should there be consequences for their choices? In the aftermath of the Berkeley council’s statements, U.S. senators introduced legislation to rescind $2.3 million of federal transportation funds to Berkeley. Following the news of the proposed legislation, the Berkeley city council voted to not send the letter while the mayor of Berkeley, Tom Bates, said the city did not mean to offend anyone in the military. Does he expect us to believe their statements were not intentionally offensive? The city council believed they were taking a principled, difficult position. But as soon as they learned of potential consequences resulting from their actions, they quickly abandoned their position suggesting their principles are negotiable. But, they still refused to apologize to the Marines, saying they were only “clarifying their position,” and statements like “trained killers” did not warrant an apology.
