Hard on the heels of finishing Little Brother by Cory Doctorow, I come across this article which just heightened the sense of true possibility. The DHS is pushing for greater monitoring of virtual communications to go with their greater monitoring of physical presence. DHS Secretary Napolitano specifies that trade-offs of civil liberties are inevitable to stay secure. The founders of our country proudly hailed the philosophy that people who can give up freedom for safety deserve neither. How far has our population and our rebel spirit devolved that we as a people no longer uphold this philosophy? We are supposed to be the "land of the free and the home of the brave". All I am seeing in news stories like this is America becoming the land of the constrained and the home of the scaredy cats.
The Declaration of Independence may not be an official piece of legislation but it is no less true today than it was in the 18th century. A government that restricts the rights of the people to communicate, congregate, discuss, express, worship, visit, or otherwise go about their daily lives, in real life or virtually, is a government that has become a tyranny. Let us hope the DHS does not get its way in this current issue, or we are well on our way to the kind of marshal law described in Little Brother.
I am not a terrorist. I am just an American citizen who believes in the essential civil liberties our country was founded on.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Licensed Journalism?
A Michigan state senator this month introduced a bill to encourage voluntary licensing of journalists in the state. The license, or certification, would be given only to those who understand “generally accepted standards of journalistic ethics”, have a college degree in journalism or a related subject, experience, show “good moral character”, and pay $10.
Even though the proposal writer does not plan to push the issue into actual law, the fact that this was brought up should be concerning to every person nationwide who values freedom of speech, press, and information in general. The very idea that the government would play any open role in regulating the press in this country is repugnant.
We are a country founded on a free press, in whatever form it may come in, specifically so that the press can openly report on the government; if the government controls who is “certified” to report about its actions, it is no longer a free press. I also find it ironic that under such a law the government would control what is considered moral character and journalistic ethics when it is often our legislators who are found to be involved in scandals of immoral behavior.
While such a law, as this one is written, would not apply to photojournalists, it would apply to editorialists and commentators, including online bloggers. How many of you bloggers out there want your words discounted because you don’t meet your state’s requirements for a license? How small of a step would it be from voluntary journalist registration to mandatory registration? Once registration is mandated, how small a step would it be for the government to prohibit publicly stated reports or editorials by non-licensed journalists?
For democracy to continue to exist, the press must remain free from any governmental intrusion or regulation.
Even though the proposal writer does not plan to push the issue into actual law, the fact that this was brought up should be concerning to every person nationwide who values freedom of speech, press, and information in general. The very idea that the government would play any open role in regulating the press in this country is repugnant.
We are a country founded on a free press, in whatever form it may come in, specifically so that the press can openly report on the government; if the government controls who is “certified” to report about its actions, it is no longer a free press. I also find it ironic that under such a law the government would control what is considered moral character and journalistic ethics when it is often our legislators who are found to be involved in scandals of immoral behavior.
While such a law, as this one is written, would not apply to photojournalists, it would apply to editorialists and commentators, including online bloggers. How many of you bloggers out there want your words discounted because you don’t meet your state’s requirements for a license? How small of a step would it be from voluntary journalist registration to mandatory registration? Once registration is mandated, how small a step would it be for the government to prohibit publicly stated reports or editorials by non-licensed journalists?
For democracy to continue to exist, the press must remain free from any governmental intrusion or regulation.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Free speech...for all?
So, how true can you be to the principles of free speech? Do you believe free speech applies to all? This is often seen as a no-brainer, but what about when the speech is filled with hate, bigotry, and insults? The attorneys general in both Virginia and Maine are the only two in the nation who have taken the controversial stance in a recent court case--that freedom of speech should, indeed, apply to all.
Virginia won’t back hate-speech suit
My heart goes out to the Snyder family; to lose a son, and then have awful things shouted about him and them at his funeral, is a terrible thing to endure. I fully support the Patriot Guard nationwide, and the good work they do shielding families from protestors like the Westboro Baptist Church; I've considered joining them myself. I personally loathe what WBC does.
I also have to agree, however, with the last line of the article, a quote from ACLU executive director Kent Willis: "This kind of deplorable free speech must be protected in order to make sure all speech is protected."
I hate what WBC stands for, and I hate what other hate groups like the KKK and Nation of Islam stand for. I hate that conservative Christians often make general statements about people going to hell for this, that, or the other, statements that frequently would include me (and most of my friends) for any of a variety of reasons. I hate that Islamic extremists preach against the capitalistic way of life in the United States.
BUT
I like having the freedom to tell WBC, the KKK, the Nation of Islam, and any other bigots to go to hell. I like having the freedom to tell those conservative Christians where they can stuff their dogma. I like having the freedom to express my opinion about various military actions our country is involved in. I like having the freedom to tell a soldier or veteran "Thank you for your service" then turn around and tell the government they made the wrong choice in sending that soldier in the first place.
If I am to continue to expect to have the freedom to speak as I please, I have to defend the right of others to speak as they please--so long as it is only words, not hurtful actions--, no matter how despicable I find their words. To paraphrase a quote of questionable origin:
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it.
Can you do the same?
Virginia won’t back hate-speech suit
My heart goes out to the Snyder family; to lose a son, and then have awful things shouted about him and them at his funeral, is a terrible thing to endure. I fully support the Patriot Guard nationwide, and the good work they do shielding families from protestors like the Westboro Baptist Church; I've considered joining them myself. I personally loathe what WBC does.
I also have to agree, however, with the last line of the article, a quote from ACLU executive director Kent Willis: "This kind of deplorable free speech must be protected in order to make sure all speech is protected."
I hate what WBC stands for, and I hate what other hate groups like the KKK and Nation of Islam stand for. I hate that conservative Christians often make general statements about people going to hell for this, that, or the other, statements that frequently would include me (and most of my friends) for any of a variety of reasons. I hate that Islamic extremists preach against the capitalistic way of life in the United States.
BUT
I like having the freedom to tell WBC, the KKK, the Nation of Islam, and any other bigots to go to hell. I like having the freedom to tell those conservative Christians where they can stuff their dogma. I like having the freedom to express my opinion about various military actions our country is involved in. I like having the freedom to tell a soldier or veteran "Thank you for your service" then turn around and tell the government they made the wrong choice in sending that soldier in the first place.
If I am to continue to expect to have the freedom to speak as I please, I have to defend the right of others to speak as they please--so long as it is only words, not hurtful actions--, no matter how despicable I find their words. To paraphrase a quote of questionable origin:
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it.
Can you do the same?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)