Freedom to be

Freedom to be
by
C. Kem
080510


Tonight I was watching a video by Penn & Teller. Amazing the accuracy they provide with the humor and sarcasm. Accuracy and truth. Like in the videos “Patriotism” at http://youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4 and “1st Amendment” at http://youtube.com/watch?v=xPhje8wepyg.
For anyone to really understand my reference to those videos, they should view them to get the idea presented. Penn and Teller do a far better job than I ever could through the use of their comedian techniques.

In the first video they speak of the symbolism of the American Flag. The freedoms, the liberties and the abilities to exercise our freedoms and liberties *because* of the American Flag. Especially the First Amendment. In the second video, of course as the title depicts, it is about the First Amendment.

So what is so important about the First Amendment anyhow? Consider what it is- “Congress 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.”
What this means is-
- that the Government can neither impose a state religion upon you nor punish you for exercising the religion of your choice.
- you may express your opinions, write and publish what you wish, gather peacefully with others.
- and you may ask Government to correct injustices.

So when you look at exactly what the First Amendment is comprised of, you soon see that it is more than freedom of religion, more than freedom of speech, and more than the right to seek a redress of grievances. It is literally the first and foremost of our Bill of Rights. But it is not there to tell us what we CAN do, instead it tells us what the government CANNOT do. It is one thing for us Americans to have rights. But it soon becomes a horse of a different color when our forefathers tell us not what our rights are but what our rights are AND what the government cannot do to interfere with those same rights. For someone to write something telling us what we can do, that is giving us privileges. But when they write something telling us what we can do and what is done to protect what we can do, THAT then becomes a right, an inviolable right that no one has any right or authority to prevent us from utilizing.

In the second video, a guest is brought in- Professor Chomski of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And he refers to the use of a Nazi poster in a students bedroom. In a college dorm. The very private abode of all students. And as Prof. Chomski defined, “the home of the student”. Ok, let me understand this. Prof. Chomski feels that a college student does not have the right to have a Nazi flag or poster in their dorm room.

If the presence of the poster or flag was enough to offend one of the student’s roommates, that is understandable. But we are talking about the private refuge of the student’s “home”. Even Prof. Chomski said so himself. “...it is their home now. The college environment is their home.” (02:38-02:41) Their “home”? And somehow they are not entitled to the right to privacy and self-expression? William Gladstone once said "What is morally wrong cannot be politically right."

So let me get this straight. We have a college student, inside his home, prohibited by the college he attends the right to express himself and speak his peace INSIDE his own home. And what is the difference between him and myself? Besides that he may like Nazis and I do not? Does that make him better or worse than myself? Perhaps he is NO better nor any worse than myself, just that he has his own opinion? Or is that in and of itself any different than myself? After all, we all have our own opinions, right? Right.

So returning back to the similarities between the student and myself. He has a dorm room he calls home. I have an apartment. He paid for his rent, right? Of course, it is not often a student can stay on campus rent free. I sure did not when I went to college! So that is a similarity. He has a home and so do I. Now considering the college’s position, he cannot have a Nazi flag or poster in his dorm room. Does that mean that I cannot have a flag or poster in my apartment that is not of the school’s approval? Some people may say “why sure! He is living on campus!” Really? Actually, no. That is where his First Amendment is protected by federal law.

Like Section 1981.
• Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I Section 1981- Equal rights under the law. (A) describes it perfectly- “Statement of equal rights.”
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

And Section 1983.
• Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I Section 1983- “Civil action for deprivation of rights.” Again, described so well-
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

And finally Section 1985.
• Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I Section 1985- Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. “(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges.”
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”

So going back to the college student. Even Prof. Chomski said the dorm is their new home. Ok. And the difference between their home and my home is....? They pay rent. I pay rent. Only difference is I do not know of any college that allows students to pay on a month to month basis. Me, I can, and it is usually a yearly lease. But does it matter how they pay the rent? They are students and usually have to use student loans to pay their room and board in advance. Me, do not be concerned where I get my money because it is no ones true lawful concern. But does that matter? What if I won the lottery? What if I held up a bank? What if I had a rich uncle? And the difference between myself and that student is.....what, exactly? What is the relevance of what we have in common, you ask? Simple! If that student does not have the right to privacy and freedom of speech and freedom of expression inside their home, would that not mean I do not have those same rights either? Clearly relevant when you look at it from that perspective. So what would the college do? Inspect my home periodically to make sure I am obeying their opinions of what is acceptable? No. They do not have that right. But they do with other students? Why? Former US President James Wilson said "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

One common argument is “because it is the college's property”. Actually that argument dos not hold water. The problem is the college is then the landlord and I know of no state where the landlord can censor or obstruct the opinions and views of their tenants. After all, the tenant pays the rent, right? The college students already have it paid in advance by at least a semester.

So the college is telling these students that they cannot have a Nazi flag or poster in their dorm room. Ok, why? Again, the student has the freedom of speech. Freedom of expression. Right to privacy. So the school takes down their freedom of expression. Which gets me to ask again, “why?” Because would that not mean the school is showing disrespect to their flag? No! No no no no NO! It’s a Nazi flag! Not the school’s flag, right? Right AND wrong. Right it is not officially the school’s flag, but wrong as the school’s actions are, they are very similar to the censorship exhibited upon the German people by, of all people, Adolf Hitler. So when they strip the students of their freedoms and rights in displaying Nazi memorabilia, they are actually showing respect for the teachings and words of Hitler by forcing, by shoving down the throats of their students, the censorship, and discrimination Hitler pushed.

I think Joseph Sobran has the ultimate answer for all of this- "The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honour you can bestow on him. It means you recognize his superiority to yourself."

Certainly gets one to think, does it not?