TaBoo's First Amendment to the Constitution

Published on February 1, 2005 By TaBoo Tenente In Politics

You silly, silly people. What have you done now? All of your focus on saving poor, defenseless American flags has blinded the educational system and warped your children's sense of values. They all believe that killing Iraqi civilians is freedom, while seeing a blurry, surgery-enhanced nipple is worse than. . ..No. It's so bad that there's nothing worse, anywhere.

BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer reports that "more than one in three high school students said it [the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States] goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."

There's no consistency. You want guns to protect yourself, and such a right was written into the Constitution so you could take up arms against an oppressive government. You want freedom to practice your religion, and such a right was written into the Constitution so your government would not have power over your god--I'm sure you no longer remember, but this was most likely the reason your ancestors tamed the untameable seas. You want the freedom of speech, because. . .because. . ..

Do not worry. I will tell you why. You want the freedom of speech because the freedom of speech provides for every freedom you enjoy. Freedom to speak your part returns your humanity to you. Without this freedom, there are no freedoms left.

Here's the crux: many silly, silly people believe that in order to show your patriotism, you must cede this right to your government. In fact, the American incarnation of Patriotism has perverted everything that made this country great. There is nothing wrong with loving your country: if your country is great, then love it, respect it, and bring your country flowers every week or so before she forgets about you. But if you think blind support of your government is what this country is about, then you are one hundred percent incorrect, and may which ever deity you believe in have mercy on whatever you believe drives the subatomic neural processing of your being.

You silly sod. Your Founders wrote the Amendments so you could be safe from your government. Burning a flag does not make you a traitor. Writing an anti-policy article does not make you a traitor. However, your children think that it might, because of all your gesticulating and your cursing of those hairy, hippie-pinkos. Yes, the superbowl half-time show is a public, family forum. Yes, you are not supposed to see a nipple in a public, family forum. Nevertheless, please be careful when you demand stringent censorship in front of your children.

Which is worse: if your eight year-old son spies a nano-second of nipple and then steps out back to torch a flag (in the official flag-torching manner prescribed by the United States Fire Safety Squad); or if your eight year-old son becomes a fifteen year-old son who has no use for the freedom of speech?

So I'd like to propose an Amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment will allow for your inalienable right to speak your mind, your right to not have your thoughts detailed and copyedited by the government, and to burn a flag if it gets soiled.

Does this sound in any way familiar? Because it probably will not to your children. Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments (Page 2)

drmiler

on Feb 02, 2005

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 02, 2005

well, journalists should be held accountable for representing either fabricated or unsubstantiated as fact; and biased journalism, unless noted, is not good journalism. government-regulated content is no answer though, and im sure neither the kerry or bush squad would make good editors.

but who gets to determine quality, obscenity? on the one hand, protecting your children is important; on the other, i am sure you don't want me to determine for you what constitutes decency (i'll do a good job, though--i promise!). obviously if i shouldnt make these determinations, neither should a partisan government.

hence, the 1st amendment. the idea, like the right to bear arms, is to protect the individual from an unfair, unrepresentative government. the government apparently is by, for, and of the people, or some such, and when it loses this perspective, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to stand up for inalienable rights. without the 1st amendment, a democracy is not possible.

dabe

on Feb 02, 2005

Then how do you account for your blind self?

Fuck you

NJforever

on Feb 02, 2005

Then how do you account for your blind self?

To put it more eloquently, (unless it was a joke, which I suspect it was) that was uncalled for.

thanks again, tj, for the t.r. quote above.

No problem, if you want some other quotes I've got an article with them here Link

drmiler

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply #18 By: dabe - 2/2/2005 10:19:30 PM
Then how do you account for your blind self?

Fuck you

That was totally uncalled for you ignorant jerk.

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 03, 2005

man. what happened to this thread?

dabe

on Feb 03, 2005

I'm sorry TaBoo. You should ask drmiler why he had to toss insults at me. ParaTed may not agree with me, and I with him, but we are capable of reasonable debates on the issue.

drmiler does not add to the discourse at all. He just takes it upon himself to toss insults and bullshit. As you can see, he otherwise added nothing. No, NJforever, it was no joke. He called me "blind" because of my liberalism and rather outspoken disdain for dubya & co., and to which I responded accordingly. Again, he otherwise added nothing to the conversation. He's a prime example of blind patriotism, jingoism personified, which ironically, is the topic at hand.

And, I really detest that stupid borderline iliterate sob.

latour999

on Feb 03, 2005

Taboo, when you first wrote it, I thought "we can't really be this stupid, can we?" Now, after one day in grade 12 history, I realize that we are. So far, it's only the first day, and F9/11 is a media source, and "we really need a dictatorship to get things done around here that are good for the country. Until they start going nuts with power. Then we'll assassinate them or something" rrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttttt......I'll agree when you can get Jack Layton and Ralph Klein to agree on "what's good for the country" (for those of you unfamiliar with Canadian politics, that's pretty much saying when hell freezes over).

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 03, 2005

dabe: ive read dr. miller's comments other places. i often strongly disagree with him; nevertheless, he makes insightful comments that i usually find interesting to discuss. his comment here definitely seemed to be unprovoked, though i know you two tend to go at it on a regular basis. still, feel free to argue with him again here; i would just prefer if you would attempt to keep it kosher for the public.

dr. miller: i think you understand, as well.

latour: i very much appreciate your comment. are you canadian, and/or currently living in canada? with the ridiculous amount of news sources these days (which, in general, i believe to be a great thing) it is hard to find an objective take on what happens north of the border (or within the border, for that matter). do you have a source that you use?

the two main problems that i see are these:

1)the first and most significant is that it seems that students today do not fully understand the implications of our 1st amendment, for whatever reason. these students haven't conceived of what "freedom" might be like without this amendment. in my mind, there's a very good reason this amendment is the first.

2)the second is that we have a problem with the media. there's a heartless rush to uncover the most current and sensational story. sometimes it seems that the rush supersedes any need to uncover truth--as long as the headline is catchy. but i would never suggest that the government play any role in monitoring or moderating the so-called information. journalistic integrity is perhaps the largest responsibility the media has to maintain. obviously, everyone makes mistakes, even journalists; still, when a mistake is made, the media forum that hosted the mistake must be accountable. this accounting somewhat successfully takes place, i would say, because of the wealth of interested and competitive news sources, that are only too excited to identify an error in the enemy camp. it's a system of checks and balances. even so, any self-aware individual who has opened a history text should know to read/listen to- everything with very large granuals of salt.

tbt

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 03, 2005

man. what happened to this thread?

Taboo,

My guess is, a few folks decided to test your commitment to free speech...lol

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 03, 2005

Laughing out loud is right.

What a predicament!

drmiler

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply #22 By: dabe - 2/3/2005 7:34:34 AM
I'm sorry TaBoo. You should ask drmiler why he had to toss insults at me. ParaTed may not agree with me, and I with him, but we are capable of reasonable debates on the issue.

drmiler does not add to the discourse at all. He just takes it upon himself to toss insults and bullshit. As you can see, he otherwise added nothing. No, NJforever, it was no joke. He called me "blind" because of my liberalism and rather outspoken disdain for dubya & co., and to which I responded accordingly. Again, he otherwise added nothing to the conversation. He's a prime example of blind patriotism, jingoism personified, which ironically, is the topic at hand.

And, I really detest that stupid borderline iliterate sob

It was sarcasm you ignoramus.

latour999

on Feb 03, 2005

latour: i very much appreciate your comment. are you canadian, and/or currently living in canada? with the ridiculous amount of news sources these days (which, in general, i believe to be a great thing) it is hard to find an objective take on what happens north of the border (or within the border, for that matter). do you have a source that you use?

Yes, I am Canadian. I live in Manitoba. Are you Canadian?

Anyway, for news north of the border, I like www.cbc.ca/news, and watch the National on CBC, however they seem to lean a bit to the left.

Interesting sidenote, during the last election campaign, the National (CBC) did a poll of newspapers for how they looked at the parties and leaders. Both the Liberals and Conservatives had their share of bad stories on them (they were both slightly in the negative, I think Harper a bit more), and the NDP was in the positive, until Jack Layton blamed the deaths of homeless people in Toronto on Paul Martin personally, when it became around neutral. Didn't help Jack Layton any, though. He only won 19 seats.

drmiler

on Feb 03, 2005

Eastern Diamondback

on Feb 03, 2005

Why is everyone under the assumption that the censorship detailed in the article is only nationalistic/patriotic in nature? Far more often I see students and some teachers fall victim to the censorship of political correctness, which is the domain of the left.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!