August 08, 2005
Great posts from around the blogosphere:
- Air America misses a payroll. [The Radio Equalizer]
- "Investor’s Business Daily is going after the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—with both barrels..." [Little Green Footballs]
- "Is advocating a violent overthrow of the democratic system of government an acceptable exercise in free political speech? Probably not, since it can be taken as an incitement to violence." [Chrenkoff]
- "On Tuesday, August 9, there will be another protest against the inclusion of Shareat laws in the constitution and to demand full rights for Iraqi women." [iraq the Model]
- A developing, mutually-beneficial relationship between blogs and MSM? [Mister Snitch (who begins the post with a link to a recent article of mine.)]
Enter Your Comments Here:
Your comments are welcome. Abusive remarks and trolls may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of The Big Picture.
#1
Here is my response to Chrenkoff's article:
It would seem to me that Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous utilitarian judgement in re the freedom of speech needs to be revisted, and perhaps the whole concept needs to be defined more narrowly.
Many seem to consider the First Amendment to be nearly absolute in its application, something which I think may be a luxury we can no longer afford when the security of the nation is at stake.
I am not a Constitutional lawyer and thus I do not have the knowledge of precedence here beyond the basics, but it seems to me that when such things as "speech codes" (official or not) can be enforced on college campuses, in the private sector, in the MSM, and various other venues with the tacit acknoweldgement of the US Gov. and society as a whole, then it is not outrageous to suggest that when a Muslim says something about the US government being a "tool of the infidel" that needs to be "put to the sword," then we should have the power to ship him or her back to wherever they may have come from...even if they are naturalized citizens. In fact, it may be prudent and just to treat any naturalized citizen involved in revolutionary activities in the name of an international body (as Islam is) as an "enemy combatant" with all that entails. Of course, this means free access to excellent meals, ACLU marytr status and Harry Potter books, but at least they will be out of circulation. Most Islamic militants and their cleric/handlers profess that they are citizens only of Islam, and not of any nation. Fine...then their oath of allegiance to the US is null and void since they deny such allegiance. Thus, their citizenship is not being revoked, merely "annulled."
In summary, I think the definition of free speech needs to be revised, even to the point of amending the Constitution if need be. This is not a hysterical reaction to historical circumstance, but a necessary change in the functioning of a free society that must guard itself against religious totalitarianism from abroad...for such Islam is, by its own frequent and strident admission.
Pomoze Bog.
Tsar Lazar
Tsar Lazar | 08.09.05 - 12:32 am | #