I’m sure you’ve all seen it before. Someone’s done something wrong in the public eye and gets caught. It could be a senator who’s embezzled millions from the electorate, or some foul-mouthed Southern gun nut drunkenly discharging his firearms in public. When they get brought in or arraigned on charges, they might scream, “Hey! What about my rights?!”
In America, nowhere is this now more evident than in the roving gangs of (often armed) thugs who stubbornly riot against any decision by President Obama. They might claim, despite their propensity for violence, that they are only engaging in their “First Amendment rights”. Now I find it ironic that people whose hero claimed that the Constitution was a “damn piece of paper” want to use the Constitution when it suits them, but let’s look a bit more closely at these claims:
A democracy cannot flourish without democratic-minded individuals participating in the system with maturity, each one weighing both sides (left and right) with reasoned inner debate until a logical choice is arrived at. Our system (who can claim it as his own?) is not one of tyranny; it rightly lies on the good of human nature as it’s foundation. Who is more qualified to rule The People than The People themselves? Is it not true that people are, in general, good-hearted? Is it not true that only a few bad apples spoil the bunch? And, verily, is it not confirmed that these bad apples have been responsible for racism and the loss of liberty? These bad apples whom I condemn as maligners look out merely for their own interests. This cannot be allowed in a democracy; without the individual looking out for the good of the whole, the entire system collapses into bickering, strife, bigotry, intolerance, and hate.
In the democratic method, each individual joins one large pool herein known as “The People”; the vote of one combining and synergizing with the vote of the many to form an end result greater than the mere sum of the total number of votes. We can, logically and maturely, combine our wisdom into a form in which if a mathematician were to use addition he or she would simply end up with less than the end effect. But a problem arises when a maligner tries to use democracy to defeat democracy; the system becomes sabotaged and freedom becomes extinct. All freedom lovers cannot and should not stand for this. We must rally ourselves against the forces of bigotry and together defeat intolerance. Democracy by design cannot accomodate those who from the outset have undemocratic thoughts are do not mean to be democratic. After all, who could imagine placing King George III or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the head of our democracy?
A few well-meaning but confused people will tell me that I wish to combat the hate of freedom with the inhibition of freedom. However, I have a more important question to ask the befuddled: would you rather have The People be a force of benevolence and tolerance, a neutral arbiter that punishes those that interfer with the rights of others, or one of extortion, self-indulgence, and hate for the soul which lives simply trying to do what is right in the world? The People, when in a state to be desired, must regulate it’s population to prevent lice from becoming too populous within the host. And I ask yet again of you, which is more important: the grand maturity of good or the small festering vermin of evil which hides only to spread it’s filth at night? In the case of natural law: is democracy not intended to spread freedom? And what a sin would go against the purpose of the very purveyor of freedom!
To quote a great man, John Madison (Federalist 10), “If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.” It is the duty of the citizens of a democratic nation to use the powers granted to The People to eliminate, figuratively speaking, all those who wish to mock it. Should democracy ever turn a blind eye towards truth, it may turn back again and see the smoking ruins of freedom and the demon of fascism emerge from it.
The greatest gift the founding fathers of the United States of America gave to us was the First Amendment. Intended to allow us to criticize unjust laws and tyranny, and to allow a democracy to run smoothly without any ill-effects, it has been misused by maligners to claim allowance of hate speech. However, I ask everyone of American acquaintance to pull up their Constitution and read the First Amendment. One part says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“, and “right of the people peaceably to assemble“. The first part clearly does not permit speech that hurts another being, as defamatory language was never meant to be protected as a right. The second part has a key word inserted in, and that word is “peaceably”. We all know that the racists, extremists, and religious fundamentalists are not calm or peaceful, and when confronted with the excess amount of faults they see through their tainted lens of putrefaction, resorts to ad hominem and violence. Thus the right to defamatory and uncivil blabbering is a nonexistent right, and provides no hostilities to the wing of freedom provided by the founders of our great nation.
Democracy, simply put, gives what it gets, and is an avatar of the collective individuality of each and every person, and will remain as such as long as it remains virgin and pure to the serpentry of intolerance.