DUCK DYNASTY & THE "RIGHTS" OF THE RIGHT...IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED

The big kerfuffle of late is whether A & E violated Phil Robertson’s (of Duck Dynasty fame) rights when they suspended him for making homophobic comments in an interview with GQ.  I would argue, Hell, I would shout at the top of my lungs, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!  It is not really possible for A & E to violate his Right to Free Speech.  That is because A & E is not limited by the Constitution regarding the exercise of Free Speech.  Those screaming about the violation of Mr. Robertson’s are pissed because it is their ox being gored.

The Right-Wing neo-Conservative, Teapublicans are bent out of shape because someone big, a corporation like A & E, with lots of media attention, had the audacity to suspend Mr. Robertson for holding an opinion with which the Right Wingers happen to agree.  Throw in the fact that Robertson’s remarks have been cloaked in the veil of religion and the Religious Right is screaming about the protection of Mr. Robertson’s “Rights;” Rights they tend to completely ignore when it happens to be the Left, those Progressive bastards, and it is that much worse to them.

Not too long ago, Right Wing Conservatives got bent out of shape about remarks made by a member of the Dixie Chicks country band when they made statements that called into question then-President George Bush going to war in Iraq.  Need I point out that we went in with the absolute guarantee that it was looking for weapons of mass destruction; none were ever found!  In retaliation for their remarks, the Dixie Chicks had sponsors pull out on them and the public made sure their then-number-ten hit on the country charts dropped off the charts completely in a couple of weeks.  Where was the Right about their Right to Free Speech?  Personally, although I am not a country music fan, I went out and bought their “Wide Opens Spaces” album as a show of support for their position.

In 2012, Ozzie Guillén, then manager of the Miami Marlins, was suspended for five games after making comments supportive of Fidel Castro.  Where was the Right then?  There were no voices from the Teapublicans screaming about Ozzie’s “Rights.”  Hell, they were calling for his head on a platter, and the five-game suspension was not near enough for them.  It is 0kay for a company, like the Miami Marlins, to suspend the manager for making statements with which they agree, but not Mr. Robertson, because they agree with what he says.

Jill Filipovic of The Guardian wrote a rather excellent article, in of all things in a British paper, regarding The First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States.  I invite you to read this article at the link below.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-not-violate-freedom-of-speech?CMP=twt_gu#start-of-comments

I wish to comment further on Ms. Filipovic’s commentary and explain, yet again, to the neo-Conservative, Right-Wing Tepublicans a basic lesson in civics or social studies.  I have already written about the First Amendment, way back in 2011.  You can see my previous comments at:

http://wam18jr.blogspot.com/2011/06/conservative-vs-liberalforce-vs.html

As I always start with, I will, and have, defended with the offer of my life anyone’s Constitutional Rights; that being said, I do not have to agree with the position or opinion of the person offering up the protected speech.  That is my Right as a citizen of a free country.  I can respond to a protected speech by doing anything from boisterously complaining about their position to taking action.  Acceptable actions are things like: not patronizing their business, not patronizing someone that sponsors their business (in this case a reality TV show), not buying their book, not going to their church, refusing to contribute to their political party, and a myriad of other “actions.” 

The key here is the term “protected speech.”  The Constitution of the United States does not protect the people of the United States, referred to in the Constitution as “We the People” from, well, “We the People.”  The Constitution protects us from the Government, not each other.  If you read the First Amendment it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”  [Emphasis added].   The Constitution does not say that any person or citizen cannot do anything within the limits of the law to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of speech.  The last I checked A & E was not Congress, so there is no Constitutional prohibition for them doing what they feel they must to indicate their displeasure with Mr. Robertson’s remarks.

Let us assume some scenarios that might result if we were prohibited from interfering with each other’s free speech rights.  Your boss, the guy that pays you a paycheck, is a miserable, sniveling coward; let us assume it is an absolute fact, not an opinion (it really doesn’t matter whether it is an opinion or not).  You walk into his office and tell him exactly what he is and why.  I would bet my own paycheck that, all things being equal, you will not have a job in short order. 

See, you do not have a “Right” to tell the boss what is true if the boss does not want to hear it, even if it is true.  You have a right to say it and there can be no consequences from the government, but The Constitution does not protect you from your boss.  Yes, if your boss is a public official and you are a member of his political constituency, an argument can be made that you can tell him he is a schmuck and get away with it, as long as you are acting solely as a citizen, but let us not split hairs too fine.  In a world where you had the absolute, unabridged right to say anything to anyone and it was guaranteed by The Constitution, your boss could not fire you, but we do not live in that world.  If you dare to test the theory, you might become a supporter of extended long-term unemployment benefits and become, God forbid, a Liberal.

If you publish an article that John Q. Public engages in sex acts with sheep, and you cannot prove it, expect to get sued for liable, and probably lose.  Believe it or not, if you are talking about a Senator, you are a lot less likely to have to pay because public officials give up some of their protections by holding elected office.  I am not sure it would work with Senator Sheepskin doing the above.  In the fictitious world where you have a Right to say anything, John Q. could not win in Court.

When the Right finds someone with their viewpoint on the receiving end of “actions” related to their speech, especially religious speech, they are the first to cloak themselves in Old Glory, the First Amendment to the Constitution, all sorts of Civil Rights Laws and scream at the top of their lungs about their “Rights” being violated.  It is a misapplication of the Constitution, the Law and is particularly heinous and atrocious because these same people will happily trample the Rights of others with impunity if the exercise of the same Rights involves a position with which they disagree. 

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.  The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Snowden: Hero or Traitor...Federal Judge Weighs In

Well, it’s official, at least one Federal Court Judge, after hearing evidence and allowing both sides to present their case, came to the conclusion that the NSA has been violating the Constitutional Rights of millions, yes, millions, of Americans. After this hearing, he thinks what the NSA is doing in gathering massive amounts of information on Americans is Unconstitutional. I take this judicial determination as a pretty good indication that the point of the legality or illegality of the NSA’s actions is, at minimum, a topic on which reasonable people can disagree, and what the NSA has been doing is a subject to be debated. This debate, much to the chagrin of the NSA, will now occur in the brightest light of day, the sunshine, that light which clandestine operations seek to avoid at all costs. The NSA would much prefer to do what they have been doing for years, apparently; treating us like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark and feeding us B.S.

Edward Snowden released information on NSA spying and that has turned into a firestorm of protest against the NSA, but when we start discussing in terms of what Snowden has done, we must remember some basics about this country we call the United States of America. We were once, as we all should know, a colony of Great Britain. “We The People” decided we didn’t like what the King of England was doing to us and we said, “No more!” We did that in a document called the Declaration of Independence.

If you read the Declaration of Independence, you get past the very poetic, and I believe divinely inspired, language to find that the Declaration becomes a list, a fairly long list, of complaints against the King George III. It was by that Declaration that anyone in the colonies that supported independence became a traitor. They were subject to be tried in the King’s Court, assuming there was a trial, and presumably hanged. We live in a country, like many, that had its beginnings in an act of treason. Interestingly, since we won the Revolutionary War caused by the Declaration of Independence, most of the Founding Fathers avoided being hanged, but they were, at least to the British, traitors.

We now have a situation where many believe Edward Snowden is a traitor and should be charged with treason. Many would actually prefer to skip the trial part after he is charged and just take him out back of the jail and shoot him, but most would at least like a show trial or so-called Kangaroo Court, so we can keep up appearances and feel better about ourselves. Is this sounding like the British and the Revolution?

There is a problem with all this; Snowden may have done nothing more than reported a crime and we do not, or should not, prosecute people that report crimes.  If Edward Snowden is charged and tried, it will not be so much because he violated laws, but because he violated laws made by the people that are engaged in the violation of our Civil Rights.  It may well be an act of civil disobedience against the unjust actions of the government.  More Declaration of Independence stuff, but without the war and formation of a new country....so far.

The government passes laws that say they, the government, have the right to operate in secret to protect "We The People." Using that secrecy, they engage in acts that violate the Rights of "We The People," and now they want to claim that the guy who told us about what they were doing is a traitor because he told us about what they were doing and how they were breaking the law.  This sounds a lot like the list of complaints in the Declaration of Independence.  We told King George we are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights and he is violating them, so we said we will start our own country and government. In the later 18th Century one did not tell the King of England he was doing anything illegal.  By definition the King was the law and therefore could not do anything illegal.  One man's heroic civil disobedience is another man's treason.

Let’s analyze our current situation and, just for the sake of argument, let us assume that the Federal Court was right in what it determined.  The United States Government, through the National Security Agency, engaged in acts that violated the Civil Rights of millions of Americans. The violation of any Right guaranteed by the Constitution and that pesky Bill of Rights, is to commit a crime. If you don’t believe me, check out the following which I lifted from none other than the FBI website through the use of copy and paste:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.

( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes)

So, the NSA was committing a crime and the NSA is an arm of the Federal Government, and it is a pretty powerful arm. Within the “Intelligence Community” the NSA is described as “the agency that reads the CIA’s mail before the CIA gets their mail.”  Here is this one little schmuck, Edward Snowden, who says, “Holy crap, this can’t be legal! I’ll call the police!”  But our friend Edward thinks about it and realizes that he is about to report an illegal activity being committed by the Federal Government. He realizes that he will be silenced and repressed, not necessarily killed in an unfortunate accident, but silenced nonetheless, so he goes to “We The People.” He blows the whistle, to use modern terminology.  Who do you think are the first to brand him a traitor?  Yep, the government.  The “person” committing the crime brands him a traitor and calls it treason to reveal what at least one Judge now says was a violation of our Civil Rights.

Now that a Federal Judge, a man learned in the laws of our country, or so we fervently hope, has said he agrees that what Edward Snowden told us about what the NSA was doing was, and is, illegal, a violation of our Fourth Amendment Right, he has opened a path to what should be a frank and open discussion of what the NSA has been doing to “We The People” and I welcome that discussion.  However, I am not naïve enough to think the Government will let that discussion occur. This will be, like so many different things in our history, obfuscated by the Government. Pressure will be brought to bear, officials influenced and people in that same government that has been screwing with our Rights, will do everything in their power to make sure the discussion never fully sees the light of day. They see us, “We The People,” as the unwashed masses; lowly citizens that could not possibly know what is in our own best interests. In the words of James Taylor, “The man says stand to one side, son, we got to keep this big ball rolling. It's just a question of controlling for whom the bell is tolling.” If ever James Taylor’s song, “Let It All Fall Down” had meaning, it is today, now, and this situation. I recommend you read the lyrics, even if you hate the music.

Personally, I think that Edward Snowden has done a great service to this country and “We The People.” He has revealed that the government has engaged in the violation of the Rights of “We The People.” He has, as our Founding Fathers did, engaged in what one side will call a treasonous act, and the other side will call a great act of heroic sacrifice, but, like our war for independence, I think we will have wait to see who wins.  In the meantime, at least one guy, a Federal Judge, thinks the point has enough merit to make it worthy of discussion and careful consideration.