Skip to main content

The Horror of the First Amendment

Reactions often speak louder than actions, and no where is this more evident than in the reaction to Chick-fil-A's owners actually saying they believe what they believe. I'm not talking about gay rights groups stating their outrage (though the false equation that says "anti-same sex marriage = anti-gay" is getting boring), nor am I talking about planned boycotts (which are silly) and protests (which will be intentionally silly).

No, I'm talking of the mayors of major US cities deciding that the power of government can be welded to tell citizens to sit down and shut up. That these, er, gentlemen consider themselves liberals is just insulting. That civil liberty groups aren't outraged is sad.

If you agree with these mayors it's probably because you agree with what they're saying, but please try and look beyond that. If you grant these people the power to actually do what they're saying, you are granting government that power. One day, there will be someone in office who will decide that what you're saying or doing is bad, and will use this very same power against you.

And then you'll squeal, but it's too late, you gave them the authority.

The grossest example of this was the internment of US citizens during World War 2, simply because they were of Japanese descent. The assumption is this internment was unconstitutional, but the reality is that the US Supreme Court found otherwise in Korematsu v. United States. While the decision has been criticized, it has not been overturned and therefore remains a valid legal precedent.

As Justice Robert Jackson noted in his dissent:

The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition embeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes.
Protest Chick-fil-A all you want, but you should be worried when government decides to act against anyone's free speech.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Have I mentioned I saw Monsters vs. Aliens?

It’s possible that Pixar is becoming a blight on the world of animation. Yes, they do some really great work ( The Incredibles , Ratatouille ), but they’ve also done some clunkers ( Cars , Wall-E ). Their greatest sin, though, is that they apparently radiate a variation of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, so that any other animated film – especially if done with CG – is automatically judged inferior. There is some justification to this, but you don’t see every live action film being compared to, say, the films of Ingmar Bergman (well, except by brooding people wearing dark glasses sitting in dim coffee shops smoking clove cigarettes discussing cinema, damn you ). In the traditional film world, it’s accepted that different artists turn out different products. In the animated world, everyone is supposed to match or surpass Pixar, or so it seems. Needless to say, that’s just a crock. Monsters vs Aliens is to your typical Pixar production as Spielberg is to Scorsese. And I h...

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered....

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...