![\"1st](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/1st-amendment-e1559689503606.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Our friend Veritas Omnia Vincit returns, now with what perhaps may be a summer project. None other than the Bill of Rights, thankfully one at a time. He’s putting some perspective behind each Amendment, the thoughts of some of the Founders as they pertain to the Amendment, and perhaps a couple questions on today’s interpretation of that Amendment. Relax, I’m told there is no math on the quiz. Anyway, here’s VOV-<\/p>\n
Veritas Omnia Vincit<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cCongress 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n By now if you\u2019re unaware of my penchant for reading the founders and considering how far away from their original ideas we\u2019ve drifted you\u2019re probably not interested in any of the following article\u2019s points or commentary.<\/p>\n Whenever I discuss these topics with friends the first thing I ask is how do they understand the phrase \u201cshall make no law\u201d? Because you often find people are okay with laws that restrict speech such as the old canard of yelling fire in a theater, or fighting words, or the dreaded \u201chate\u201d speech. Once someone tells me they are comfortable with those laws the discussion centers around why they believe it\u2019s okay to restrict an amendment that clearly states \u201cShall make NO law\u201d? There are multiple reasons for this line of discussion as the concept of allowing restrictions to the first means that one doesn\u2019t believe the original ten amendments to be an inviolable set of restrictions to contain government over reach. Once someone decides that there are allowable, \u201creasonable\u201d restrictions to be placed on any of the amendments they\u2019ve essentially lost the argument of preference for a single amendment over the others. These words either mean what is written or they don\u2019t. If they do mean what is written then no laws that abridge the freedom of speech can be constitutional regardless of what any Supreme Court decision has said to the contrary. This is important because it addresses directly the concept of the view that the law is infinitely malleable versus the view of the absolutist nature of the law.<\/p>\n When dissecting any of the Amendments or the Constitution itself I usually start with Thomas Jefferson as his unorthodox religious views, his fierce defense of freedom of conscience, his constant thoughts on personal liberties and freedoms sit well with my libertarian leaning ideals. Jefferson was vehemently opposed to the Alien and Sedition Acts, largely because he felt they were nothing more than punitive attempts to stifle opposition to the current government and violated the very basic principles of freedom of speech for citizens and the press alike. It\u2019s clear in Jefferson\u2019s mind that \u201cshall make no law\u201d meant precisely that, no law period. <\/p>\n Another interesting founder is James Madison, for Madison the first amendment is always to be considered in absolutist terms as Hugo Black had surmised. As much as I love Jefferson, Madison\u2019s view on the first amendment suit me perfectly. It was Madison\u2019s view that for a republic and its people to remain truly free public opinion must be allowed to form unabated without restriction from the Government. It was Madison\u2019s further view those who sought to restrict speech were actually opponents of republicanism. For Madison the free speech of the people and the press were not only natural rights, but were a set of preconditions for self governance such as a Republic.<\/p>\n In our current hyper-sensitive political climate the concept of speech that \u201cgoes too far\u201d is often repeated thousands of times by a media no longer representative of the mass of the population but instead represents the interests of the handful of corporations that own the bulk of all media in this nation. The risk to the Republic and the First Amendment is the constant assault on \u201chate\u201d speech as a compelling argument for additional laws or regulations to negate the devastating effect of words that offend. This new approach to a reasonable restriction is borrowed from the opponents of the second amendment which has been an effective tool in illegally suppressing that amendment through local regulations that are in direct conflict with the wording of the second amendment. That\u2019s a future topic I\u2019ll cover.<\/p>\n Politically speaking the use of the phrase, \u201cstand against hate\u201d or some other iteration isn\u2019t just a simple call to organize Americans to reject the views of disgusting people like those in the KKK or other White Supremacist organizations. It\u2019s an attempt to seed the ground for another series of \u201creasonable\u201d restrictions. Who needs to use the \u201cn\u201d-word after all, you don\u2019t really need to call someone a whore, or a fucking moron, and no one needs to call a female politician a stupid b#tch or worse, right? I mean a polite society shouldn\u2019t find those words necessary and thus those comments should be considered criminal. <\/p>\n Of course, none of that is being legislated at the moment, but along with the stand against hate commentary you might have noticed that a great many institutions of higher learning are teaching their students that certain speech should and will be suppressed to keep \u201coffensive\u201d words and views from finding a place to be discussed in the open at a university where diverse concepts should be discussed and exposed for their lack or merit or supported for their merit.<\/p>\n What do you think students being taught that suppressing speech is acceptable will do once they become elected officials? Do you suspect they will all forget those lessons? More likely they will remember how effective those bans were in keeping opposing views silenced and attempt to pass laws or regulations that limit speech.<\/p>\n All of these concepts and actions matter, every attempted intrusion into your protected rights is another wedge the government will use to expand its control over your life and the lives of your family. <\/p>\n We\u2019ve already lost the war of keeping the government small enough to fear us, it\u2019s time to remember the reason this nation was founded in the first place which was to provide a place where dangerous freedom was the normal default condition of this society as opposed to the relative peace and safety of ruled subjects of the crown.<\/p>\n Shall Make No Law in absolutist terms works just fine for me. <\/p>\n Let me know your thoughts on the matter. If I continue the series, I\u2019ll save the second amendment for last because it\u2019s the most important of all the amendments as without that one, none of the others matter. Thanks, V. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nVoV<\/p><\/blockquote>\n