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 4)

Bunnahabhain

on Feb 05, 2005

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.

Amen Brother!

Here's the crux: many silly, silly people believe that in order to show your patriotism, you must cede this right to your government.

Having a great constitution is not a good substitute for education or critical thinking. It does not gaurantee that your people will all be smart of act wisely.

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.

Freedom of speech can be a double-edged sword; you may be held accountable for what you say. You may be shunned if what you speak is deemed unacceptable to others, or they may not even listen to begin with. There's nothing to force them to.

Bunnahabhain

on Feb 06, 2005

on the other side--again, no need to debate this right now--canada seems to feel like they need to do whatever it takes to distance themselves from the u.s.. even more so than us citizens, ive found, canadians like to group their southern cousins into a single, labeled perspective.

Some Canadians maybe - there have always been some that act/feel that way - but they don't speak for all of us.

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 06, 2005

you make a good point; reading what i wrote there makes me feel silly. there's your proof that the freedom of speech doesnt ensure wisdom.

people should be held accountable for what they say--but censoring them is not only wrong but dangerous. if i spend public air time defaming someone without proof or cause, then i must be accountable, i dont think that this is an infringement of the first amendment. by speaking on a public forum, i must represent myself accurately and let my statements be judged on their accuracy. this is not an infringement, either. . .i do not think.

tbt

Bunnahabhain

on Feb 06, 2005

people should be held accountable for what they say--but censoring them is not only wrong but dangerous.

Yes, I believe in censuring where appropriate, not censoring.

this is not an infringement, either. . .i do not think.

Never forget the beginning words to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law..." (emphasis mine) when considering whether something is an infringement.

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 06, 2005

well said. i think that your differentiation is key.

TBT

Eastern Diamondback

on Feb 07, 2005

nevertheless, to imagine that the fact that woman does not derive from the masculine root is a dangerous and inaccurate way to conceive of language.

If you're really interested in the man-woman link, I'll be more than happy to explain. In Old English, the term man means "human; of the human species."
The proper OE term for "male human" is wer or werman and the terms for "female human" were "wif" or "wifman," with wif being the basis for the Modern English wife. Wer began disappearing sometime in the Middle English period.

The PIE word for woman was g(w)en-A. Germanic labiovelars like "g(w)-" became "kw-" through sound change. This is the origin of the word queen.

Woman does not derive from "adult male human" like Eve was born of Adam's rib.

I'd also like to add that language isn't "every conceivable system." Language is a completely arbitrary system of codes which are enchipered and deciphered by speakers. A smile is a form of communication. Laughter is not a form of language, as it is recognized as the same thing by all people of all cultures. An American woman in Seattle and Dinka tribesman in the Sudan both recognize it. All social animals have forms of communication, but not all animals have language. Language is product of our minds and our evolution. Our brains are hard wired for language, just as it is for culture (of which language is an extraordinarily influential part).

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 07, 2005

easter diamondback,

first of all, i thank you very much for your post. this is the kind of discussion that makes me very happy. obviously you have studied this issue, and that seems to promise some liveliness when i offer the following proposition (just a friendly debate, okay?):

nevertheless, to imagine that the fact that woman does not derive from the masculine root is a dangerous and inaccurate way to conceive of language.If you're really interested in the man-woman link, I'll be more than happy to explain. In Old English, the term man means "human; of the human species."The proper OE term for "male human" is wer or werman and the terms for "female human" were "wif" or "wifman," with wif being the basis for the Modern English wife. Wer began disappearing sometime in the Middle English period.The PIE word for woman was g(w)en-A. Germanic labiovelars like "g(w)-" became "kw-" through sound change. This is the origin of the word queen.Woman does not derive from "adult male human" like Eve was born of Adam's rib.

I am not sure this is the point, especially if you are explaining a feminist take on language. The study of language involves accepting the condition of "entities". Formalists may not recognize the OBJECT or even the OTHER as integral to language, while post-structuralists, like Walter Benjamin, believe that there is no language whatsoever without communication.

The feminist take talks about two functions of a masculine language. The first function is the function of making the woman invisible or subordinate. You have explained the literal, physical origins of the terms "man" and "woman" as they developed through the evolution of english. but this is not the "system". Consider these sentences: (1)Man has two sexes; some men are female; (2)Man breastfeeds his young; (3)Ask the candidate about his husband or wife. Obviously, each of these sentences are grammatically correct, and the third sentence appears to make an attempt at some modern linguistic social equality. But just as obviously, these three sentences reveal that these terms are NOT gender-neutral, and the female aspect is subordinated. Why is this so, if the "man" and "woman" terms are separate? The reason is a function of our SYSTEM, which is not english. it is the system that subordinates "female" to "male".

That was the first function. The second function of a masculine language system is to normalize the masculine. Consider words like "doctor" and "waiter" and "steward". Are they gender specific? Most spoken languages add conditional terms to nouns in general, apparently for clarification. "Waitress", and "stewardess" are obviously english, female constructions based on the normalized male root. You can search for the origins in language, but it does not explain the SYSTEM, which, again, developes through a child's development, creating the dual component of "sign" and "symbol". The system subordinates the female and normalizes the male. These things affect the way our children, and thus the way we think--and also the way our culture evolves.

If you are interested, here is a more in-depth critique of feminist linguitics: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-language/
Link.

By the way, I very much like your laughter example, although I would disagree with the concept of arbitrary systems. I like Dr. Jung's perspective on the origins of symbols. According to the dualistic theory, neither aspect (sign or symbol) is arbitrary, though the sign is absolutely subjective.

tbt

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 07, 2005

i forgot to make my case with the word "doctor". The link above suggested that the British use this term: "Lady doctor". Can anyone from England verify this?

tbt

-----

on Feb 07, 2005

its amazing what can happen to postings like these...

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 07, 2005

what seems funny to me is the fact that at first, something may seem like an on-topic response can end up as a crazy tangent. let me see: freedom of expression to censoring to political correctness to systems of language. quite a feat for 50 some-odd comments!

tbt

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!