Tweet
The terrorist assassination of Dr. Tiller there have been calls on the Left for to abhorring the words of people like Bill O’Reilly and Fox News as well as those involved with Operation Rescue and other anti-reproductive freedom groups. It is understandable when such a horrible act is committed to want to react in such a way as to prevent it from ever happening again. This has lead to calls for restricting the ability of those whose words may have encouraged and incited the anti-reproductive freedom terrorist, Mr. Roeder, to do so in the future. This is an understandable desire but one that should be strongly resisted.
"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"
The history of the First Amendment’s protections from Government interference in citizen’s speech is a really tortured one. Just in the last 100 years we have seen laws upheld and people jailed for what looks to us like perfectly reasonable (and protected) speech. There were laws, which were held to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court, which prevented people from merely encouraging munitions workers, in print, to strike in protest against WWI (Abrams V US) . There were laws that punished people with jail time for merely being members of a State Party whose National Party advocated the workers overthrow, but put forth no specific plans for doing so, of the US Government, even though the person convicted did not support that plank of the platform and had argued against it. (Whitney V California)
It has taken a long time to get to the place we are at today, where if you are not advocating the immediate illegal action for political reasons you are safe to do so. You may feel differently but the Dog believes it is better to be where we are today than where we were in the 1920’s – 1940’s. It is important that we don’t let fear drive us to give up rights we have had to fight for over a long period of time. This, sadly, is what the criminal Bush administration did so well. They found something their supporters and many in America feared and because of the horrible events of 9/11 they managed remove 4th Amendment rights and protections that should never have been messed with.
Right now, the well meaning calls from the Left to change the laws to prevent the odious Mr. O’Reilly from saying things like “baby killer” on the air about abortion Doctors like Dr. Till is doing the very same thing. We want to protect people, specifically doctors providing legal services to patients who have asked for these services from the violent fringe of the anti-reproductive freedom groups. This is very real and right now immediate fear, but if we did so, the cure would be worse than the problem.
What we would be doing is directly interfering with the First Amendment protections of those who oppose women having control of their own bodies and reproduction. As controlling and spurious as their arguments are, they do have protections from the Government preventing them from speaking their minds. This is important as it is a cornerstone of any democracy that all citizens can speak their mind, no matter how intolerant, how misguided, how ignorant those words are to their fellow citizens and their government. If we limit these groups right to speak, where does it end?
Will those who are convinced of the government’s involvement in 9/11 be muzzled next? The Dog does not buy this conspiracy theory, but he does not think we as a people and our government should in any way prevent them from talking about what they think happened. The remedy for objectionable speech is not to restrict it, it is always more speech. If we are unhappy about those who say such hateful things about abortion providers then it is our duty to stand up and speak out against them. It is far better for a democracy to have a loud, angry and final debate about issues than it is to let one side have the platform out of some desire not to be controversial or because the topic is uncomfortable. We all know we can disagree without being disagreeable, but it does take more effort.
As for the problem with the actions of the anti-reproductive rights groups the issue, as it is has been often in America in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries is not more laws, but actual uniform enforcement of the laws. Mr. Roeder was reported for vandalizing an abortion clinic in the week prior to his attack on Dr. Till. He should have been investigated by Federal and local authorities when his cars license plate was reported. After all this was a convicted felon who had attacked abortion providers before, no action by him in regards to doctors or clinics can be seen as innocuous.
For too long the division in this country on the issue of abortion has allowed law enforcement to take a hands off stand if the community or the officers did not agree with the legality of abortion. This is flatly unacceptable. Rule of law is about rule of law all the time, not selective enforcement. If we want to prevent and reduce the number of attacks by anti-reproductive rights terrorists, we can no longer turn a blind eye to law enforcement in regards abortion law. As long as we allow soft enforcement of protection orders and failure to investigate incidents then we are leaving our law abiding citizens who provide abortions on their own.
If it is a time for action on this issue, and the Dog thinks it is way past time, then we should take the right action. Let us take the action the reinforces our ideals of free speech and rule of law, not actions which will limit our First Amendment protections and will not prevent the further killing and harassing of legal abortion providers. To do so would be playing into the hands of the intolerant authoritarians who are the fellow travelers of the anti-reproductive rights crowd.
Protecting the Constitution means protecting it for all of the people, especially the disagreeable assholes who would push past all reasonable speech. The Constitution is not a buffet where we can pick and choose the rights we like and ignore the ones we don’t. Like wise it’s protections are not an exclusive club where we can vote on who gets to join those protections. This is the argument we make for full civil rights for gay citizens, if that argument is to mean anything, then we must stand up for the right of fools to be fools.
The floor is yours.
3 Comments
It completely sucks that we have to protect the speech rights of Nazi’s, pornographers and these fools, but that is what it takes if we want our own rights protected.
There was never a right not to be offended.
Recommended. Well said, STDS. When we would muzzle those who spew venom, that would also muzzle us in our right to speak out against them. It seems the ignorant and bigoted will always be with us, but I think their numbers are less than in years past in relation to the population as a whole.
Unfortunately there are pockets of law enforcement that are numbered among them who render the law a mockery. The police who failed to do their duty are responsible for this doctor’s death. (IMHO).
Ignorant and bigoted fits this guy. A well known Jewish author who often appears on CNN.
***********
” But Friedman, who today travels the country as a Chabad speaker, showed a less warm and cuddly side when he was asked how he thinks Jews should treat their Arab neighbors.
“The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle),” Friedman wrote in response to the question posed by Moment Magazine for its “Ask the Rabbis” feature.
Friedman argued that if Israel followed this wisdom, there would be “no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.”
“I don’t believe in Western morality,” he wrote. “Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.”
Friedman’s use of phrasing that might seem more familiar coming from an Islamic extremist has generated a swift backlash. The editor of Moment, Nadine Epstein, said that since the piece was printed in the current issue they “have received many letters and e-mails in response to Rabbi Friedman’s comments — and almost none of them have been positive.””
http://www.forward.com/articles/107112/