Random First Lines: I'd walk anywhere, any distance,just to see your face.I'd take anything from anyone,just to feel your warm... : Romance » Read

Welcome Visitor: Login to the siteJoin the site

Freedom Of Speech and the Global War-On-Terror

Short Story By: EdwardJBradleySr
Editorial and Opinion


This is to present a lighter and somewhat sarcastic view of a truly serious issue, currently, under heated public debate. From September 11, 2001 until now, the end of 2006, this debate has been gradually intensifying.

On one side of the debate are civil libertarians who claim that one or more of the U.S. Bill of Rights have been, effectively, abridged by the U.S. Government (that is, by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.) as part of the way in which it is conducting the War-On-Terror. These persons want the protections of the U.S. Bill of Rights to be extended, by the U.S. Government, to people who: 1. are not Citizens of the U.S.; 2. are identified as foreign agents waging their side of the War-On-Terror against the U.S.; and 3. may be U.S. citizens and who oppose the actions of the U.S. Government in conducting the War-On-Terror. Publically expressing their disapproval using vitriolic speech which some might consider subversive and/or treasonous.

On the other side of the debate can be found social and political conservatives and seriously patriotic Americans who believe: 1. the U.S. Bill of Rights extends only to U.S. citizens. 2. the U.S. Bill of Rights can, in no way, be appied to foreign combatants waging a "shooting" war against the U.S. and 3. in time of war, the more extreme expressions and exercise of one's civil rights may be legitimately and temporarily suspended in the interest of national security and safety. This viewpoint has held sway at various times in U.S. history. Examples: during wartime. the various "Red Scares". natural disasters and other perceived crises, real or imagined.

In my view, both sides put forth valid and well reasoned justifications for what they are advocating and seek to accomplish. At the same time, in the War-On-Terror, neither seems willing to permit their thinking or actions to be influenced or informed by the validity which may be found in the arguments of those with whom they disagree.

This submission is just one view on how this may actually be "sorted-out". Several justifiable perspectives are possible. One could say: "Some are correct, in part, and mistaken, in part.".

Perhaps, this would be a good time for adherents to either side of this argument to: back down, cool off and rethink the facts, the history, the context of situation and how it may all be resolved from the perspective: "What is best for America, Israel, Islam and the rest of the world?".

Some smaller sacrifices, on the part of all, may be required for a truly peaceful resolution and for peace, itself, to be found. At present, the sacrifices being experienced seem too costly for all involved. View table of contents...

 

Submitted: Dec 21, 2006    Reads: 242    Comments: 7    Likes: 2   


With the exception of ancient Greece, the pre-democratic period, in world history, existed prior to July 4, 1776 and the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

The U.S. Bill of Rights was enshrined in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791.  All Americans are guaranteed the right to "freedom of speech" by the 1st amendment.

The idea of "freedom of speech", most probably, originated with the renowned French political philosopher, Voltaire (1694-1778).  Voltaire shocked (pun intended) the educated people, of his day, by saying: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.".  "Just whose death?", I am wondering.  Although, Voltaire gets the credit, the remark originated with the less well known C. S. Tallentyre.  Apparently, as Groucho Marx, viewing this quote, might have said: "A more forgettable historical figure I can't recall".

More recently, as some assert, America has entered into another post-democratic period as the result of the ongoing War-On-Terror.  This may be true.  If true, then every American should hope for the time when some of our, allegedly, "abridged" civil rights, contained in the U.S. Bill of Rights, are more fully restored.

Like the present time, it is during these difficult periods when many Americans will favor practicality over principle.  In other words, the "Spirit Of 1776" may not be fully embodied in or by the "Spirit Of 2006".  It may also be said that between 1776 and 1791, it was not much in evidence then either.  What a difference 15 or 230 years can make "in the ways of the people and things."(George M. Cohan: "45 Minutes From Broadway" 1905).

In their thoughts and for the present, many Americans may choose to paraphase Votaire (and Tallentyre) by telling themselves: "While I may approve of what you say, under these circumstances, I will not lift a finger to defend your right to say it.".


2

Email this story Email this story | Print Story Print Story | Add to reading list

Comments:

glenda vautrin

cool you definitely tell it likie it is.

Posted: Dec 21, 2006

Author Comment:

Glenda:

Thank you.

I am reluctant, sometimes, to tackle complicated issues where the consequences, for many, are as serious as life and death. The danger is in casting a most serious topic in a light which might make it seem trivial. Either to the mind of the reader or, perhaps, to make the reader think my view of it seems to render it trivial to my mind. It is a most serious matter and I view it such.

My more fully developed opinion is not adequately expressed by either side of the debate. Or by myself either. The most outspoken representatives of either side impress me as having ulterior motives. These possible ulterior motives are not clearly seen or even suspected by the majority of the public who are being frustrated in their attempts to, earnestly, seek accurate and unbiased information so they may more fully form reasoned thoughts and opinions based on a truer, broader and deeper understanding of all relevant elements of the issue at hand.

When only false or irrelevant issues are being raised and publicized, then public opinion cannot gain the traction needed to make the political and media actors stop putting forth their own narrow, unspoken and, at times, destructive agenda in place of what would most truly benefit the public. In other words, public opinion is rendered without impact or influence. Like-minded politicians and members of the media, secretly, do and say what they want to each other and then, tell those members of the public who support them what, they think, that same public will want to hear so as to continue to curry and keep their support. The withholding of crucial information is the tactic most often and effectively used.

All of this has resulted in a voter turn-out of less than 50% of all adult Americans who are legally eligible to vote. Even in a presidential elections which attract the largest turn-outs. This means that anyone who can get as little as 25% of the eligble voters to vote for them can win an election and then declare themselves as having a "mandate". Election losers often claim they too have a similar or equivalent "mandate". Both claims lack credibility.

This might not be happening if only half of the 51+% of the non-voters would vote for just one of the many 3rd party candidates who are, also, not endorsed by either the Republican or Democratic parties. Non-voters need to provide themselves with an answer to this question: "If your vote does not count why then, do professional politicians and their consultants spend so much time and money, between elections, counting and evaluating the votes (both cast and uncast) and how they may better discourage voter turn-out in the next election?".

Until this changes, both the Democratic and Republican parties will just continue to "take turns having their way" with an unresponsive public. Plundering them of their taxes and depriving them of their safety, security and legitimate civil rights. One term of office without a clear majority of Republican or Democratic office-holders might go a long way in helping to solve or diminish this problem.

Not a pretty picture. While we are forced to wait, hope and pray for some "change" and/or "reform" which will, actually, result in "improvement". Let's not hold our collective breaths. Just our judgements. What other choice do we really have?

Happier trails,

Ed Bradley.

Annie Legend
Annie_Legend

Ed,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article and it's reference to Voltaire. Good point. A very well-written article by a consummate professional.

One thing I have difficulty with is that the internees in Guantanamo Bay have not yet been given a trial to determine whether they have committed the crimes/acts of terrorism for which they have been imprisoned after 5+years. Not exactly what the Magna Carta intended. (Although, I know the legal system in the US is quite different from the English adversary system...the latter which is not about justice or truth..ah, there's another story!) If convicted, then the full weight of the law should deal with them appropriately. Just a humble opinion from a quasi civil libertarian.

Posted: Jan 10, 2007

Author Comment:

Annie:

Thank you for your complimentary remarks about this article. Glad to read them. Most appreciatively.

First, the American legal and/or justice system is based, entirely, on English Common Law and embraces the same adversarial method(s). Similarly, factual truth can be elusive. The Magna Carta, a basic text of European civilization, became subordinated to and by the American Declaration of Independence.

Second, Guantanamo Bay "detainees" are not American citizens and, therefore, do not enjoy the same constitutional protections as do U.S. citizens. Though, I strongly suspect, most Autralians would be treated better, under similar circumstances, than are the current Guantanamo Bay "detainees". "Small comfort!", you may think.

The U.S. Bill of Rights may have universal appeal but not universal application. Not yet at least. And, perhaps, never. In any event, it is not the the burden of the U.S. government to ensure that all of global humanity can enjoy them all the time and not in time of war.

In perceived times of international crisis, both real and imagined, the U.S. has, temporarily, suspended, some civil liberties to some Americans. These would include: Alien and Sedition Acts (1801-04), abridging "Freedom-Of-Speech, President John Adams (not re-elected, losing to Thomas Jefferson. Primarily, on this issue.). World War II, when Japanese Americans were imprisoned in camps to live in barracks(losing all their property in the process) as well as some other Americans who, prior to 1942, had openly embraced and advocated for one or more of the fascist National Socialist movements/ideologies in either Germany, Italy, etc.

Various "Red" scares (from 1880 - 1960) in which some trade unions, socialists, writers, movie makers and other artists were targeted for harassment and abuse by some agencies of the U.S. government. More recently, the Vietnam War era and, now, the Global War-On-Terror. To me the main questions are: 1. Are the threats real? If so, then grudgingly, I will and do support the efforts put forth to defend the U.S. against all real threats. 2. Are the legitimate civil liberties of any Americans actually being abridged? A worthy topic for discussion and debate. This is not at all clear to me now.

When in grad school, one of my professors, often, accused me of being "typically American" in my thinking and expressed viewpoints. This was intended to be an "insult" and to discredit me, in the eyes of my classmates, as I was, apparently, offending one, more or all of the "basic", "well-reasoned" and "sacred" tenets of secular liberal humanism(a.k.a. "Political Correctness"). By now and as you, no doubt, suspect, I never felt insulted, in the least. In fact, these were my happiest and proudest moments. "Yankee Doodle"!

My greatest concern: What guarantee is there that abridged civil rights will ever be restored? Future elections can cause this to occur but cannot guarantee such an outcome. This would be because, for most voting middle class Americans in time of international crisis and where the U.S. is threatened, the issue of national security will "trump" almost all other competing issues in aggregate.

In this and many other important respects, Americans are not at all like Europeans. See the Daniel Day-Lewis movie, "The Last of the Mohicans".

The main-stream American news media as well as many Hollywood, TV, music and other entertainment celebrities, outside of their artistic performances, have little or no cache among the majority of the Americans. Though they do play a role in election campaigns.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

Smallwriter

I believe a large chunk of your introduction, which is longer than the article, should have been incorporated in your text.

Let me get rid of a couple of things that missed your eye.

The U.S. Bill of Rights were enshrined (was enshrined - the subject is Bill not Rights or Bill of Rights as one subject)

french should be capitalized.

My problem with American liberties is that they do not know where freedom ends and license begins. Neo-nazis spewing hate or attempting to march through Jewish districts is not freedom of any kind. The degradation for both participants and watchers, men and women, in pornography, which in its turn degrades sex, the most wonderful way to express emotion and feeling, is not freedom. People flaunting their sexual preference by parading nude or nearly so, down the main streets of cities and towns is not freedom. And what kind of freedom or justice is it to keep Pollard, who spied for an ally, locked up longer than anyone who has spied for an enemy during peacetime? All this has nothing to do with Bush but remains a constant and persistent eroding of what democracy stands for and what it really is.

Possessing guns without a license was fine when America was an untamed country but today, it is one of the main causes of robbing its citizens of life, let alone freedom. Democracy should be protecting its citizens not giving them the means to take life at will. It is not permitted in Israel where allowing it would seem more logical.

Forgive me for getting up on a soapbox, but your article did that for me. Was McCarthy exercising civil rights when he took away the opportunity of thousands of American citizens to earn a living because of largely imagined Communist sympathies? Abridged civil rights?? When the hell are the Americans going to start curtailing them?

Posted: Feb 27, 2007

Author Comment:

Smallwriter:

Thank you for your many thoughtful comments. Have corrected the grammatical and spelling errors cited.

Agree with most of what you have to say.

1st: The introduction, intended as background discussion, is longer that the article because newspapers would never print something as long as the introduction. The article is of more publishable length.

2nd: In the U.S., there is an ongoing "Culture War". With the more secular-progressive/liberal "left" lining up behind most Democrats and the more traditional/religious/ conservative "right" lining up behind most Republicans.

Extreme elements of the "left" tend to be more "libertine" and would, through the courts, misinterpret "license" to mean "licentiousness". In the War-On-Terror, they have been trying to have the U.S. Bill of Rights, extended to the terrorists in the custody of the U.S. One of their many legal instruments has been the A.C.L.U., with which I might find myself to agree on about 1 in 25+ issues. Over the past 50+ years, they have been more successful as it is easier to "set" legal precedent than it is to "overturn" it. Combine this with deploying enormous sums of money into political campaigns to support their candidates for office and the outlook, for them, is better than for traditionalists. Their other big advantage is that they want, mainly, to have the government implement their agenda (legalized abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.) and do not want their campaign contributions reimbursed with tax cuts or government subsidies at tax-payer expense.

Extreme elments of the right are less well defined or unified. Some are economic conservatives wanting tax cuts(for the rich) and cultural conservatives wanting to legally restrict or ban; abortion, homosexual rights(of all kinds), feminism, the secularization of society(repression of Judaic-Christian religious values in public life). They also provide much funding for political campaigns to elect their candidates. Many want their campaign contributions reimbursed with tax cuts and government subsidies, on the basis of, $5-10+ back for every $1 contributed. They seem to be getting it too.

Most interesting! The electronic broadcast media receives most of the contributed political campaign $ by selling air time to the candidates who can afford it. Those candidates who cannot afford the "air time" stand a poor chance of winning either the Democratic or Republican party nominations and, therefore, will never be elected.

The culture war gets a lot of media attention but is not that important to most Americans who are always more concerned with issues pertaining to the economy, income and employment.

3rd: Disproportional sentencing of those convicted of crime occurs, at times, within the U.S. system of justice. Laws allow (and judges are given) leeway. Crimes of treason, usually, receive harsher judgements, though, the death penaly has not been used for quite some time. In 1948, the execution of the Rosenbergs may have been the last time. U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy was an influencial "villain" of his time.

4th: Gun ownership is, most probably, the issue of greatest importance to most Americans. No one political lobbying organization has more "clout" than the NRA. The NRA can mobilize the most voters at the grass-roots level.

Will try to answer your remarks on the "U.S. Astronaut Love Triangle" later. Was trying to do so last night but was thrown out of the session when I exceeded the word limit. Want to choose my words most carefully before posting them.

About to exceed my word limit for this response to you.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

Tony
Tony

"People who are willing to give up a little bit of freedom, for a little bit of security deserve neither and will lose both." That was actually said by Benjamin Franklin believe it or not, and I agree with it whole heartdly. Thanks to freedom of speech people are allowed to get on booksie.com and express their veiws. Most Americans need a wake-up call, our liberies are being taken, and it won't be long before someone does something about it. At least I hope, because I don't like the way we are headed.

Posted: May 7, 2007

Author Comment:

Tony:

Thank you for reading and commenting on this posting.

True! Many civil liberties do seem to be under attack. Freedom of speech being one of them. Maybe!?!

For example: The intellectual, thought and speech regimen of "political correctness" inhibits the free speech of those who may disagree with it. Either in part or in it's entirety.

Licence (to write) does not confer the right to engage in licentiousness (creating pornography or advocating violence). Or does it? Liberty and libertinism, with respect to sex and morality, are also different. Some people don't know the difference. Differences do exist but to explain them would require a long and exhaustive discussion. Not enough room here. Nor do I wish to engage anyone in it. In the end, there will always be disagreements which, in my opinion, are all based on personal values and beliefs. To each their own. Thus far!

Consider this: Is there an inescapable relationship between the exercise of "free speech" and the speaker having to take personal responsibility for what may happen after having exercised that same civil right? For example: a speaker may encourage another to commit murder or another crime. Either intentionally or unintentionally. We all know the criminal actor is responsible. Most of the time. But what of the person whose words incited the wrongful act? Not an easy question to answer well. Or to prove either.

With respect to the U.S. Constitution, the communications technology of 1782 seems to encompass the intent of the framers. Examples: 1. Printed text as it may pertain to political ideas and thought, primarily. and 2. Electronically unamplified human voice/s as in a public square made to persons who can hear the speaker with their own ears. You may disagree. As, I'm sure, will many others. Movies, TV, radio, internet broadcasts (and some content such as photographs) did not exist in 1782 and so, therefore, may not be considered to be "protected". By some. This controversy will continue for some time.

Ask yourself: Would Benjamin Franklin agree with the content and presentation of the ways in which some choose to express themselves today? Would he also think it worthy of the protections of the U.S. Constitution when it was written in 1782? Maybe! Maybe not! What would Franklin's thinking, judgment and opinion be today? In view of some of today's ideas and communication technology? We can guess but may never really know.

We are living in a period where many are willing to forego some of their freedoms to acquire some increased measure of "security" of their persons, property and in their daily personal lives. Is this based on considerations which are valid or imaginary? Or both? Once suspended, when will the full U.S. Bill of Rights ever be restored? Have they been suspended now? If so, then which among them? We all may ask!

You may also enjoy my posting entitled: "Freedom of Thought vs Freedom of Speech.". Some of my remarks are intended to be satirical and not to be taken too seriously. Unless, of course, such conditions should overtake us or are found to be existent. We can only form our own individual opinions. In the end, politics will determine what happens. Let's hope for the best.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

djtswing
djtswing

Well written, always interesting to read things on such subjects. And by the way, I found your pun on Voltaire quite the cute one.

As for the Bill of Rights and such, it is too often taken for granted. Just think way back when Freedom of Speech was brought up: tv, computer, radio, etc. Those were not invented yet. So you really had the choice of just dodging it all together. But now that these things have become availible, people use the Freedom of Speech to excuse the things they say.

Too many people are sitting back and not willing to defend rights. Yes, there is a right to speak your mind, but it is a lot different now. We must really take into account the different use of that freedom to see how downward we have fallen. People should stand for a new right, the right to shove a sock in the mouth of irresponsible dirt bags who think they can say whatever they wish. And I really do not care if that sounds politically incorrect, it seems freedom has been infringed by political incorrectness in the first place.
~Dan

Posted: May 12, 2007

Author Comment:

dtjswing:

Thank you for the compliment/s as well as your interesting, thought-provoking and entertaining remarks. In the last sentence of your comment/s, I think, you meant to say "... political correctness in the first place.". And I do agree. Not a pretty picture! In any event.

Thanks again for the read and rating.

Happier trails,

Ed Bradley.

JL Musgrave
JL_Musgrave

Amen!

"Honor is a harder master than the law." Mark Twain

Posted: May 15, 2007

Author Comment:

JL Musgrave:

Thank you. Glad you liked it.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

Pratibha
Pratibha

these topics are so serious that they leave me speechless....i really liked it

Posted: Jul 12, 2008

Author Comment:

Pratibha:

Thank you for reading, commenting and the compliment.

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.



Add Your Comments:

Your Name:

Spam protection control::

© Copyright 2008 EdwardJBradleySr All rights reserved. EdwardJBradleySr has granted theNextBigWriter, LLC non-exclusive rights to display this work on Booksie.com.

Add to Reading List
Become a fan
Email this story Email this story
Read/Write Reviews Read/Write Reviews
Print Story Print Story



Other writing by EdwardJBradleySr Legislation: Domestic Care-Givers Epitaphs 6 & 7 (Dark Night Of The Soul!) Here To Stay POEMS Friends In Close Harmony More..



Tags

Love, Poetry, Life, Death, Poem, Romance, Pain, Fantasy, Hope, Sad, Sex, God, Hate, Horror, War, Hurt, Humor, Sadness, Loss, Dark, Fiction, Depression, Heart, Family, Faith.

Get Started

Join for free, post your writing, read, comment and more!

Publish

Easily upload your writing to an eager audience.

Read

Read a growling list of novels, short-stories and poems.

Learn More

A bit curious? Find out more about Booksie.

About | News | Contact | Your Account | TheNextBigWriter | Advertise

© 2008 TheNextBigWriter, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.