It continues to amaze me that those who have grown up with the Bill of Rights (e.g.; most of the FCC and the administration) have so little understanding or respect for it. Apparently, there is no realization that the rules they champion could, in a slightly different environment, be applied to their own cherished beliefs. We must defend the ugly, wrong, or distorted speech, or be prepared to lose our own ability to present reasoned, logical, and correct opinions. And using "the children" as the excuse and shield for otherwise unacceptable positions is both cowardly and disturbingly elitist. It is my understanding that Mr. Gibbs was not born in the US, but traveled here. If so, then his credit for so clearly and forcefully presenting a defense of the Constitution is even more admirable. And in these days of attacks on tolerance from without (Bin Laden) and within (Robertson), it is welcome indeed by all who cherish freedom. May the blessings of the deity be showered upon you.
Latest LAN/WAN headlines from Network World:
Online ad targeting progresses in UK, lags in US
Streamcore bolsters WAN visibility features
How CIOs can align themselves with the business
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
here, here
In the history of defense of the Bill of Rights, those who have been in the U.S. for a while seem to frequently want to use it to defend their idea of the status quo. Those who come from other countries know that the status quo can be used to do things that aren't very nice in any one's book, thus defending the status quo isn't always a good idea.
The rubber hits the road when what I want to do is considered offensive by someone else. Is offending someone else considered harming them? Given that we have yet to see proof that images or language cause lasting damage, I can't hold by that argument. While I will admit that certain images may give someone ideas to act on that may not be in the nation's best interest, the fact that they act on them is (I believe) indicative of a deeper character flaw.
I could go on, but this is fodder enough.
One more head to the Hydra
The government wants to keep us all safe - to protect us. We're not supposed to use our own strength or common sense to do so, they want to do it for us. Of course, that means we need to carry them around in our pocket, but what's a little privacy over the safety they offer us?
I think Ben Franklin said we could be safe or free, but not both. Personally, I quit flying when they told me I couldn't carry a pocket knife - I've had one since my dad gave me my first Barlow when I was 6. I use it daily, a common tool. That's my line in the sand.
I'm a born, bred American who served his country & doesn't have a criminal record. In my opinion, that means my government better have proof that before they violate my civil rights to protect me - I really wish they felt the same way. That goes for what I listen to as well. I know how to turn off the TV or radio. I don't ask them to ban Rap music, which I find as irritating as Guy Lombardo. I just change stations - sometimes removing them from easy access when I find them too annoying. I don't need a beauracrat to help me. Pretty soon they'll want to inspect my hands after I go to the bathroom or possibly help me out - NO THANKS!