Last week a number of revealing incidents took place as a small Florida church flirted with burning copies of the Koran.
First, we learned that a large number of the left and 'left' are actually stereotyping Muslims and seeing them as terrorists. Were that not the case, why would they repeatedly play the fear card? They all went around like Annette Bening's character in the first half of Mars Attacks and it was truly something to marvel over. If the Koran were burned, they insisted, Muslims would attack! It was like a goofy Tim Burton film where they never grasped how their remarks actually fed into false stereotypes of Muslims as a whole.
Second, we discovered few people actually know the Constitution and even fewer -- including those swearing oaths to uphold it -- actually care what it says.
Political speech is Constitutionally protected speech.
It doesn't have to be popular speech, it doesn't have to be pretty speech. It's political speech -- and, in a democracy, protecting the right of political speech is one of the most important goals of the government. When we lose the right to political speech, we lose democracy. One can not exist with the other.
Flag burning is a form of political speech. In the US, many people oppose the burning of the United States flag but the act of burning the flag -- political speech -- is protected by the First Amendment. In an attempt to get around the Constitution, from time to time, Congress proposes ramming through an amendment banning flag burning. Not that long ago, in 2006, the editorial board of The Nation informed the country:
The most decorated war veteran in the Senate, Hawaii Democrat Dan Inouye opposed the amendment. "This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is unpatriotic," Inouye said of flag burning. "But, the winner of the Medal of Honor for his service in World War II, told the Senate, "I believe Americans gave their lives in many wars to make certain all Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts."
Inouye was hardly alone in that sentiment.
"The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous," explained former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, in his classic statement of opposition to attempts to craft a "flag-burning" amendment. "I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."
Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts? The First Amendment applies to speech we find outrageous?
Then where the hell were defenders of the First Amendment last week?
They weren't at The Nation which refused to come out in favor of the First Amendment. They were more than happy to allow the increasingly prissy and fussy Greg Mitchell to offer an echo chamber disguised as a parade of voices. Aimee Allison, representing KPFA, as usual disgraced the station but that's been true since she advocated for burning The New Yorker in the summer of 2008 (she was offended by the cover illustration). The Progressive?
They may have been the most cowardly of all. This is the magazine where Matthew Rothschild, mere weeks ago, opined (rightly) that people have the right to do protests at funerals even if the protests are (and the ones in question were) offensive. But on this issue, where's Rothschild? Head lowered, pretending to stare at the text book, sucking his thumb and hoping the teacher doesn't call on him.
In their silence, our left 'leaders' missed all the issues that matter including that military members should not be attempting to order civilians around. What General David Petraeus thinks Americans should or should not do is news worthy only in that his efforts to attack the Constitution showed a complete and total disregard for the oath he took to protect and defend it.
The person to call out was not some small-time pastor or preacher. The person to call out was Petraeus who is not the commander of American civilians nor does he outrank the Constitution. It's very telling that Stanely McChrystal makes some rude remarks about Joe Biden and Barack Obama and immediately loses his job while Petraeus pisses on the Constitution and no one wants to call him out.
As if ignoring that, in a democracy, civilians control the military and not the other way around wasn't bad enough, Petraeus also wanted to play the fear card.
If the Koran were burned, he insisted, dangerous things would be a-happening. Ooooh. It was a line that many others would echo including Barack Obama on Good Morning America and in his Friday press conference.
That line of attack has been used over and over. The Dixie Chicks, we were told in 2003, endangered the troops with their pre-war comment about Bush (Natalie Maines told a London concert audience that she was ashamed George W. Bush was from Texas). Have we already forgotten that? Are we unaware of the arguments put forward before and after Murray v. Curlett? We might want to familiarize ourselves with that (and with Abington School District v. Schempp -- the case Murray was consolidated with). For a number of reasons but primarily due to the fact that the wall between church and state is yet again vanishing.
It was humorous to hear some on the left toss around, "Burning the Koran is like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater." Though people know the "fire in a crowded theater" reference, most have no idea what they're talking about. We started asking people to explain to us what that meant. Repeatedly, we were told that someone had yelled "fire" in a crowded theater and the case had gone before the US Supreme Court at which point someone (some knew it was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) wrote the opinion. (Holmes actually wrote "falsely shouting fire in a theatre".) The case had nothing to do with a theater. It had nothing to do with someone yelling fire. That case is actually an embarrassment for the left.
During World War I, did people have the right to speak out against the draft, to encourage people (men only back then) to refuse to serve even if drafted? Charles Schenk of the Socialist Party was among those who thought people had that right (Emma Goldman and Eugene V. Debs are among the many others who agreed -- for the record, all writing this piece agree that the right exists). But the Court decided otherwise. And instead of truly addressing the issues, Holmes attempted to confuse it with his ridiculous comparison of "fire in a crowded theater." When the brief's tangental argument is better known than the issues at stake, that's your first sign that the Court decided wrongly.
Last week, our 'leaders' could have educated about that but they were too scared. Scared little puppies, whimpering and licking their wounds.
And that's how we lose our rights by refusing to stand up for them.
Repeatedly, we let the most callow of public figures play the fear card. We refused to call it out. We refused to point out that Petraeus' whining about US soldiers being in danger in Afghanistan if the Korans were burned overlooked the fact that US soldiers wouldn't be in any danger in Afghanistan if they weren't, pay attention, in Afghanistan. We refused to insist that Petraeus apologize for the very public disregard he showed to the Constitution. We sat there and took it while Barack went on and on about how he had to come in and demand that the Koran not be burned because it was his role as commander-in-chief. Who was Barack speaking to? If it was to the preacher in Florida, he's not commander-in-chief. We had this problem with Bush as well. There seems to be some comprehension issue that plagues both men. A president is only commander-in-chief of the military. There is no commander-in-chief of the American people.
Last week was a non-stop nightmare and we saw all over again how fear was instilled post-9-11. You had lefties refusing to speak up about what was legal. No one had to like the proposed burning, but they did need to know it was legal, they did need to notice that people who have no rightful say in what civilians do were butting in and disregarding the Constitution.
Instead we got fear and more fear. When someone wants to silence your opinion, they will always resort to the fear card. It's easy to play that card because it's easy to lie.
Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater? The idiots last week didn't get it. If you yell fire in a crowded theater, people run to exits and may get trampled on. That would be a result of your actions. You yelled it falsely and people were hurt.
Guess what, though? If we decide to burn all DVD copies of The Banana Splits tomorrow and someone over in Belgium is so angry she boards a plane to the US, comes over here and goes on a shooting spree, that's on her. There is such a thing as free will and there is such a thing as individual responsibility.
The preacher, had he burned the Koran, would have been responsible for burning the Koran only. Those who chose to respond in violence would have been responsible for their actions. That's how it works.
And in a democracy, how the destruction of that works is that, bit by bit, we allow our rights to be chipped away at and taken away and then, one day, we wake up and the democracy is gone and we now live in a totalitarian state -- but we better just think that, better not say it, because free speech is gone.
-------------------
Jim's notes to this article: Not everyone was silent. In real time, C.I. tackled the issue in "Iraq snapshot" and "2 US soldiers killed yesterday in Iraq, a US patrol attacked" and Ruth in "We are not under David Petraeus' command" and "Day II." Others in the community who might have wanted to weigh in were under my request not to do so in order to have this as a fresh topic for Third. While the burning was still on, Isaac Chotiner offered "The Koran Burning is Very Wrong. The Koran Burning is not THE END OF CIVILIZATION." at The New Republic. Yesterday, Hillary Is 44 published "A Koran Bar-B-Que And A Mosque Of Doom In The Age Of Fake." Added: Reader Marcy e-mailed to note P.Z. Myer's "Setting the Koran on fire, vs. setting personal liberties on fire" and "That's not my nation, Mr President" (Science Blogs) both of which went up last week. If you know someone else who stood up for the First Amendment last week, e-mail us at thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. and we'll include a link to their writing as well.
