--------------------
This letter writer, with justifiable concern, chronicles the deterioration of society via expressions of less-than-desirable speech. He then proceeds to a non-sequitur, a supposed need to amend the First Amendment. Let's quote the relevant section:
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.This amendment, like every other amendment, grants, defines, and restricts government powers. Congress shall make no law...
Thus the letter writer will recommend that First Amendment be amended to grant the government more power. He would want the judicial branch to be empowered determine what is appropriate speech, and what is not.
Can you imagine? A federal branch of government would occupy its time examining what someone said or wrote to determine if it is allowed. Case after case would be brought to the court for adjudication. Endless parsing of phrasing, context, and propriety of words would be considered.
The author then asserts: You can be certain that if the internet had existed when James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights in 1789, he would surely have imposed reasonable restrictions on its use. Really? Newspapers existed at that time. Pamphlets. Did Madison have anything written into the Bill of Rights addressing the content of these? No.
Why not? Because the Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, has nothing to say about what The People can and cannot do. From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
This is made clear from Amendment 9:
He is completely mistaken about the Bill of Rights and Madison's intent. His prescriptions would be a disaster.
Can you imagine? A federal branch of government would occupy its time examining what someone said or wrote to determine if it is allowed. Case after case would be brought to the court for adjudication. Endless parsing of phrasing, context, and propriety of words would be considered.
The author then asserts: You can be certain that if the internet had existed when James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights in 1789, he would surely have imposed reasonable restrictions on its use. Really? Newspapers existed at that time. Pamphlets. Did Madison have anything written into the Bill of Rights addressing the content of these? No.
Why not? Because the Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, has nothing to say about what The People can and cannot do. From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses (emphasis added) should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to further restrict the power of government! Its intent is not to create rights, for it cannot. Rights descend from the Creator, and are unalienable.
This is made clear from Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Is the letter writer unfamiliar with Prohibition? The Constitution must not be wielded to speak to what The People can or cannot do.
He is completely mistaken about the Bill of Rights and Madison's intent. His prescriptions would be a disaster.
As some of you may have noticed, online abuse of our First Amendment has reached new historic all-time high levels in recent years. Here is just a partial list of some of the more notorious examples: cyber-scams, cyberbullying, porn sites (all 4.2 million of them!), “Dark Net” operations (used primarily by crime syndicates and drug cartels), social media manipulation to affect election outcomes, invasion of privacy, credit card fraud, gambling, etc.
Why should our need to preserve morality, family values, and law and order be compromised by audacious First Amendment abuse? That our decadent society is willing to tolerates such flagrant abuses of freedom is indicative of the extent to which it has already degenerated.
Moreover, as one of my friends is quick to admonish, “what we tolerate today will be openly embraced by the next generation.” What will be required to break this insidious cycle of regression? You can be certain that if the internet had existed when James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights in 1789, he would surely have imposed reasonable restrictions on its use. Therefore, I believe it’s high time the First Amendment be amended to allow increased judicial censorship of this very “necessary evil.”
Why should our need to preserve morality, family values, and law and order be compromised by audacious First Amendment abuse? That our decadent society is willing to tolerates such flagrant abuses of freedom is indicative of the extent to which it has already degenerated.
Moreover, as one of my friends is quick to admonish, “what we tolerate today will be openly embraced by the next generation.” What will be required to break this insidious cycle of regression? You can be certain that if the internet had existed when James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights in 1789, he would surely have imposed reasonable restrictions on its use. Therefore, I believe it’s high time the First Amendment be amended to allow increased judicial censorship of this very “necessary evil.”
No comments:
Post a Comment