Outlawing Opinion

[John81]

Outlawing Opinion
by Chuck Norris

05/19/2009


It greatly alarms me that Americans' constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.

Several years ago, I watched then-"20/20" correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics. Surprisingly naive of America's constitutional basis, Saddam asked, "Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?" (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -- and somewhat at a loss for words herself -- Diane quipped back in answering his question, "They host television talk shows!" Saddam's facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.

Sounds so far-out, doesn't it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track -- a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.


For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.

If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: "Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government."

The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents' Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function? When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine -- which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation -- is right around the corner.

Government isn't the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean's -- who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up -- giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions, she's been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.

I don't care what your cause is. I don't care what your mission is. I don't care what the issue is. I don't care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen's constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone's offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?

It's simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam's Iraq!

When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we've drifted from our roots. Isn't it time we returned home to the Constitution?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31927

[1Timothy115]

Overdue, returning to the constitution.

I won't link arms with ungodliness to accomplish any of it.

[ptwild]

Senant Bill 909 has nothing to do with speech. It merely adds to the already existing Hate Crimes Law. The Hate Crimes Law provides for increased sentencing for crimes committed against persons based his or her race, religion, gender or national origin. For example, if you beat up your sons baseball coach for not playing your son in the 9th inning, you are guilty of assualt and may be sentenced for, lets say, 5 years imprisonment. If you beat the coach up because he is a Mormon, you may be senteced for, lets say, 7 years imprisonment. The reason what is commonly referred to as the "radical right" is so opposed to Senate Bill 909 is that it adds sexual orientation to the already existing protected class.

If S.B. 909 is passed, it will have absolutely no affect on your already existing rights to protest against gay marriage, or even your ability to exhibit the most vile and disgusting forms of bigotry that you want. However, if you decide that you want to committ a crime against a gay person, based solely on that person's "gayness", then not only will you receive the normal sentence, you will also receive additional sentencing under the Hate Crimes Law.

I find it strange that Chuck Norriss, if he is really only concerned with his freedom of speech, had nothing to say when the Hate Crimes Law was first proposed.

[tired]

I have heard this bill be called the Pedophile protection act.

[trc123]

In my opinion, no class of person should be valued more than another (in the eyes of law) to the point that when someone commits a crime against them the sentencing is more or less severe based upon some artificial "protected" class or status.

The person who kills a "WASP" should not be treated any differently than the person who kills someone of color, or a woman, or someone who is gay! It is all a crime against humanity and should be treated equally.

[ptwild]

In my opinion, no class of person should be valued more than another (in the eyes of law) to the point that when someone commits a crime against them the sentencing is more or less severe based upon some artificial "protected" class or status.

The person who kills a "WASP" should not be treated any differently than the person who kills someone of color, or a woman, or someone who is gay! It is all a crime against humanity and should be treated equally.

If the WASP is killed BECAUSE he is a WASP (i.g., for his race and religion), the murderer will face the increased sentencing under the Hate Crimes Law.

[Revelation3:20]

1st degree murder is first degree murder. The government has no business adding additional penalties based on who was murdered and the reasoning believed to be behind it. If they would execute all convicted first degree murders in a reasonable period of time as they should it wouldn't matter.

[trc123]

If the WASP is killed BECAUSE he is a WASP (i.g., for his race and religion), the murderer will face the increased sentencing under the Hate Crimes Law.

And if the victim is a black Jewish gay man, that would be three times the sentence? Do you even see how ridiculous the whole thing is. As Revelation said, "1st degree murder is first degree murder."

[ptwild]

1st degree murder is first degree murder. The government has no business adding additional penalties based on who was murdered and the reasoning believed to be behind it. If they would execute all convicted first degree murders in a reasonable period of time as they should it wouldn't matter.

So we should never consider the reasoning behind a murder? What if it is done for self defense?
The purpose behind the law is to deter hate based offenses, not the crimes themselves.

[trc123]

So we should never consider the reasoning behind a murder? What if it is done for self defense?
The purpose behind the law is to deter hate based offenses, not the crimes themselves.

Last I knew, the killing of another in defense of one's life is not called murder!

Also, I'm not saying that circumstances of a crime should never be considered in the sentencing. I am saying the color of one's skin, their religious affiliation, their gender, nor their sexual proclivities (which is not my business) should be a basis for a special law which values one more or less important than another.

[Revelation3:20]

So we should never consider the reasoning behind a murder? What if it is done for self defense? The purpose behind the law is to deter hate based offenses, not the crimes themselves.

I said first degree murder. The circumstances are considered at the trial to determine if it was first degree murder or not. Self defense that results in the death of the aggressor is not murder. Accidentally killing someone is not first degree murder either. First degree murder from Cain's murder of his brother down to the present is very often due to hate anyway. Fortunately it is still fairly rare for someone to walk up and kill someone they do not know for no reason at all and when it does happen that person often hates humanity as a whole. I submit if someone intentionally killed an innocent person not worthy of death outside of a war or the line of duty then it should not matter if they killed them because they didn't like their race, their religion, for their money, for the car they were driving, or if they killed them for no reason at all or because they were having a bad day. As I said, if the law would execute all those found guilty of first degree murder within a reasonable period of time( perhaps no more than a year or two at the max) as they should "extra" penalties would not be an issue and it would save the state from paying to keep them alive in prison for twenty or thirty years. Our society is far to easy on those who commit serious crimes worthy of death, and the legal system takes far longer than it should. What ever happened to the right to a quick and speedy trial? That should apply to both the innocent and the guilty. Isn't there an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied? There is no reason why murder cases should still be being appealed and fought over five, ten, and twenty years after they first came to trial. One way or another it should be over by then.

[HappyChristian]

[ptwild]

Well let's say it isn't murder. Let's say it is theft. What if the perp steals from Jewish owned jewelry stores for the sole purpose that they are owned by Jews. Now can you see the difference? Not only will the perp receive the standard sentence for theft, but he or she will have additional time added on due to the fact that their crimes were committed against the victims based solely on the victims religion. The illegality and risk of imprisonment is there to deter the crime itself. The hate crimes law is there to deter the hate. I'm not say this is right or its wrong. I'm saying Chuck Norris, as good of a guy and Christian as he is, doesn't know what he is talking about in this case.

[HappyChristian]

Hate crime laws will lead to suppression of a lot of things. Theft is theft, no matter the motive. Murder is murder no matter the skin color or sexual orientation. God does not differentiate in these matters, and neither should we.

[Revelation3:20]

Well let's say it isn't murder. Let's say it is theft. What if the perp steals from Jewish owned jewelry stores for the sole purpose that they are owned by Jews. Now can you see the difference?

Morally? No. Why he stole from them should not matter legally. The theft is what matters.

Not only will the perp receive the standard sentence for theft, but he or she will have additional time added on due to the fact that their crimes were committed against the victims based solely on the victims religion.

I understand that, and that is wrong. Thoughts are not a crime, maybe the person doesn't like Jews maybe they don't like Christians, that isn't and shouldn't be a crime in and of itself until they actually do an evil act. If they do a evil act that act is what should be criminal not their motives. What "hate crime" laws do is destroy the principle of equal justice for all under the law. Some people under hate crime laws become deserving of more punishment because of what they think rather than because of what they actually did. "Hate crime" laws are the forerunners of laws criminalizing free speech that is not considered to be socially acceptable. It has already happened in some other countries.

. Murder is murder no matter the skin color or sexual orientation. God does not differentiate in these matters, and neither should we

How politically correct phrases can slip into our vocabulary. "Sexual orientation" is not a biblical phrase because it implies that perversion is not a matter of sinful choice but rather how you were born as the sodomites say. I agree with your statement in concept though.