1st
Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress
shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech”
Freedom
of Speech(States' Right):
“Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,
being responsible for the abuse of that right.”
Very challenging, as today we may be involved in a situation wherein the United States government has covertly exercised “States' Right” for us? The SONY “cyber-attack” is at the center-of-attention with the Left vs. Right, with the end result the delayed release of a controversial movie called the “Interview”, wherein a satire tries to make an “Assassination” against North Korea's Hung Dung Fruitcake an acceptable reality. “Free Speech” or not? The U.S. Constitution finds not a “Responsibility Clause” for this “Freedom of Speech” right, wherein many states do indeed include such a “Precautionary Clause” in its own “Constitution” which due the 10th can trump any action or inaction by Uncle Sam. And I believe this “Abuse” clause finds merit, especially in society today as the “Internet” has allowed for an entirely new ways and means to communicate and exercise this “Right” to be heard, but not seen - which finds consequences. Case in point the litmus test: So if Sarah Palin publishes a “targeting map” on her SarahPAC support web-site, wherein those targeted find themselves in the “cross-hairs” of a deadly assault rifle along with captions of “It's time to take a STAND”...OK, so what as we all have come to realize that Mama Caboose loves to flirt with danger. Now what if a wacko fringe interprets this “map” and takes action, like in the case of Gabrielle Giffords? That's where the “abuse” clause comes into effect and is a component of contributory negligence – so why are we so afraid to incarcerate those that violate the “Freedom” with the intent of causing harm? Yes, had this attack taken place in Alaska and that was my beloved daughter now somewhat crippled for life, Sarah Palin may have faced jail time due that state's constitutionality, it is that simple and we must start contemplating the seriousness of the “abuse” clause. It was inserted for a reason. It is not designed to limit “Free Speech”, but as a measure to make sure what we say does not inflict harm, or pain and suffering against an innocent citizen, as that in itself is very “UN-Constitutional”! We must start today to be not afraid of the 1st Amendment, and it appears both sides of the isle are so afraid of the 2nd Amendment – we should be not afraid of either one – as if we found respect upon the 1st and 2nd, wow, maybe we could get on with our lives with some decency as both amendments shout out loud, but lets be heard with some respect instead of disrespect! So did Uncle Sam see a potential of harm, due the exercise of “Free Speech” with the release of this movie? And what else could it do if that be the case, except use everything in its power to abide by the “abuse” of responsibility and take responsibility to protect our interests – that my friend is a dynamic Commander-in-Chief as when we fail to act, someone else does!
Very challenging, as today we may be involved in a situation wherein the United States government has covertly exercised “States' Right” for us? The SONY “cyber-attack” is at the center-of-attention with the Left vs. Right, with the end result the delayed release of a controversial movie called the “Interview”, wherein a satire tries to make an “Assassination” against North Korea's Hung Dung Fruitcake an acceptable reality. “Free Speech” or not? The U.S. Constitution finds not a “Responsibility Clause” for this “Freedom of Speech” right, wherein many states do indeed include such a “Precautionary Clause” in its own “Constitution” which due the 10th can trump any action or inaction by Uncle Sam. And I believe this “Abuse” clause finds merit, especially in society today as the “Internet” has allowed for an entirely new ways and means to communicate and exercise this “Right” to be heard, but not seen - which finds consequences. Case in point the litmus test: So if Sarah Palin publishes a “targeting map” on her SarahPAC support web-site, wherein those targeted find themselves in the “cross-hairs” of a deadly assault rifle along with captions of “It's time to take a STAND”...OK, so what as we all have come to realize that Mama Caboose loves to flirt with danger. Now what if a wacko fringe interprets this “map” and takes action, like in the case of Gabrielle Giffords? That's where the “abuse” clause comes into effect and is a component of contributory negligence – so why are we so afraid to incarcerate those that violate the “Freedom” with the intent of causing harm? Yes, had this attack taken place in Alaska and that was my beloved daughter now somewhat crippled for life, Sarah Palin may have faced jail time due that state's constitutionality, it is that simple and we must start contemplating the seriousness of the “abuse” clause. It was inserted for a reason. It is not designed to limit “Free Speech”, but as a measure to make sure what we say does not inflict harm, or pain and suffering against an innocent citizen, as that in itself is very “UN-Constitutional”! We must start today to be not afraid of the 1st Amendment, and it appears both sides of the isle are so afraid of the 2nd Amendment – we should be not afraid of either one – as if we found respect upon the 1st and 2nd, wow, maybe we could get on with our lives with some decency as both amendments shout out loud, but lets be heard with some respect instead of disrespect! So did Uncle Sam see a potential of harm, due the exercise of “Free Speech” with the release of this movie? And what else could it do if that be the case, except use everything in its power to abide by the “abuse” of responsibility and take responsibility to protect our interests – that my friend is a dynamic Commander-in-Chief as when we fail to act, someone else does!
U.S.
Representative Giffords before “Cross-Hairs” Attack
The
SarahPAC Attack Aftermath
Gabrielle,
5-years in recovery!
No comments:
Post a Comment