| February 24, 2006 The Bramble Bush by Kevin Morford The
Fist Amendment
Fundamentalist Muslims are not the only people who have attempted to use violence or the threat of violence to suppress communications they deem objectionable. It is a practice that has been distressingly common throughout all of human history. It has taken place at all levels of human activity, ranging from multi-generational wars between empires, to the punishment of a young child by a parent. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the persecution of Galileo are a few well-known examples. More directly relevant to Alaska is the former suppression of native languages in public schools, as part of a systematic effort to destroy native cultures. We don’t need to consider only historical examples. Right now there are proposals for constitutional amendments to ban the desecration of the American flag, so that offensive communications that are currently protected can be punished. An “English only” statute was enacted in Alaska that (until it was struck down as unconstitutional) tried to prevent certain communications in “foreign” languages. Never mind that English originated half a world away. There is a curious paradox involved in all of these efforts. The use of violence to control what others say is usually carried out by those with power. Ordinary citizens do not usually try to control what their king or dictator says or does. It is the person who achieves power over other people who often uses violence or the threat of violence to try to control the speech of others. This typically is part of an attempt to promote the personal beliefs of the person with power. The paradox is that the use of violence for this purpose is actually a sign of weakness and insecurity on the part of the powerful. Violence is a very ineffective way to spread genuine belief in your ideas. The use of violence may drive expression of opposing beliefs underground, but it is more likely to create resentment and resistance than a genuine conversion. A person who is confident about the validity of his or her ideas will be far more effective in spreading them through persuasion than through violence. Those who resort to violence are implicitly admitting that their ideas are not persuasive on their own merits, and will not be adopted unless they are forced on people. The Muslims who have been resorting to violence as a result of negative cartoon images of their Prophet are saying that certain types of communications are so offensive that they should not be allowed to be made at all, by anyone, at any time. Again, they are not the only people who have taken that type of position. In the Christian religion, we find the concept of blasphemy, which is the expression of certain ideas that are offensive to Christianity. It has been punished by penalties as severe as torture and death. In several European nations, it is a criminal offense to deny the Holocaust. In many dictatorships, there are a wide variety of crimes that consist of nothing more than the expression of forbidden ideas. In the United States, the First Amendment helps to protect our right to freedom of expression. It is not a self-enforcing provision, however, and there are many people who would like to force their ideologies on others through the use of violence. The First Amendment is only as effective as our efforts to protect and enforce it. If you take “our” protective efforts out of the First Amendment, it will become the Fist Amendment, and the orthodoxy of the powerful will be backed up with a chain mailed fist. Kevin Morford is a political activist and an attorney in private practice in the Anchorage area. He can be reached at kmorford@insurgent49.com. |
-
Columnists -
- column archive -
February 17, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 3, 2006 January 27, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 6, 2006 December 30, 2005 December 23, 2005 December 16, 2005 December 10, 2005 December 2, 2005 November 25, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 11, 2005 November 4, 2005 October 28, 2005 October 21, 2005 October 14, 2005 October 7, 2005 September 30, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 16, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 2, 2005 August 26, 2005 August 19, 2005 August 12, 2005 August 5, 2005 July 29, 2005 July 22, 2005 July 15, 2005 July 8, 2005 July 1, 2005 - also by this writer - Borrow And Spend Republicans Judicial Independence Special Interest Trade Agreements Knee Jerks Unsure Insurance Flat Tax Folly Law and Disorder Spies Among Us Why Tort Reform Is Bad For The Economy |
||||||
| Copyright
2005
Insurgent Media. All Rights
Reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
|||||||
