The Downside of Freedom

“To know how to free oneself is nothing; the arduous thing is to know what to do with one's freedom” -Andre Gide

“Freedom is a package deal - with it comes responsibilities and consequences” -Anonymous
(I think I'm going to claim this one.)

"Freeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!" -Mel Gibson
Except for the Jews, he says.

We laud ourselves on our freedom, almost to a point of arrogance and stupidity. When we attack other nations, it is to protect our freedom, not to promote theirs. When other nations don't agree with us, we simply replace their identity with ours. We didn't call them American fries; they were freedom fries. Freedom has become the American buzzword; no one else sells freedom like we do. For example, the French want to ban traditional Muslim clothing. Sure, it might be because it's degrading to women and other good reasons, but the idea is still there. They are oppressors, while we allow anything and everything.

Our country's government is founded upon two incredibly vague documents: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One could argue that even the majority of our amendments contain vast loopholes to be explained and deliberated in federal courts. Ironically, our founding document, the Declaration of Independence was not vague; it was just as brief but specifically stated what we wanted to express. I'm not arguing that the vagueness of the documents is a failure. In fact, the brilliance of our Constitution is it's inherent flexibility, and the room it allows for deviation upon interpretations. However, the things it guarantees to us aren't always used positively and it doesn't always wear its years well.

The Second Amendment is the most straightforward of any amendment, yet millions of people still vote Republican because they think Democrats don't believe in it. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right to protect oneself, one's family, and our country. No one is calling you out for owning a gun for protection or to hunt with. However, the amendment does not give you a right to own an assault rifle or conceal a weapon. Assault rifles aren't for protection or game; they're meant to kill lots of people. Concealing a weapon does not make one safer; it just adds another variable to a situation which already had the possibility of someone coming to bodily harm. That being said, this amendment should have exceptions. Threatening someone with gun violence should be punishable by removal of one's second amendment rights. To own and carry a firearm is a responsibility that requires senility, sound judgment, and caution, as the gun is just as likely to end up committing violence or malice towards its owner (or on behalf of its owner) than it is to someone intending harm. I understand that the Constitution guarantees your right to possess firearms, but it doesn't grant the right to use the guns to murder, maim, or even threaten your fellow Americans. Gun owners like to say "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." It always confused me. Was anyone ever implying that the guns were the problem?

The First Amendment protects speech, press, religion, and assembly. But at what cost? The so-called freedom that our young men died for in Iraq and Afghanistan legalizes the protest of their funerals by fundamentalist Christians. People spend their time worrying about the separation of church and state, while not realizing that it protects their church from government interference just as much as it keeps the Ten Commandments out of courthouses. The ideas behind freedom of religion are simple, you don't bother us and we won't bother you. But what happens when a group goes out of their way to attack public servants for doing their duty? Nothing, because we live in a free country where being a dick isn't a liability, it's a necessary component of Americanism.

The freedom of speech they fought for allows disgruntled Americans to yell nigger at black congressmen and faggot at homosexuals. I'm not one to be bothered by words, but these same people spit on a man for voting on a bill.  Sure, the bill may turn out to be complete shit, but in essence they spit on a man for trying to get health care for the poor, children, and the sick. Who in their right mind reads the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, or any document Americans hold dear and thinks that helping the young, poor, or sick people is counter to American ideals.* Actually, scratch that because none of the current protesters have ever read any of those sources, or tried to understand them. Where is the accountability in American freedom? Truth be told, there is none. One could argue that defamation, libel, and slander are illegal, but for the most part, ridiculous statements are constantly paraded around by ALL Americans and no one gives a damn, which leads me to my next point

*Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

(If you don't know where this is from, I reserve the right to box you up and extradite you to a place of my choice, probably Western Morocco or the Sudan.)

Freedom of the press has evolved as well since 1787. The way television has revolutionized our way of life is incomparable, even considering the current impact of the Internet on daily life. Even radio and the ability to hear a speech while not present, changed the political and social aspect of America. In 1948, a newspaper incorrectly picked the winner of the Presidential campaign; now John King plays with some map that updates the voting by county with relatively constant updates. So the accountability of media should have gone up, due to the immediate scrutiny faced by them. Instead, we have three 24-hour "news-channels" that spew constant garbage at viewers. CNN gives opinions from all sides, just not good ones. MSNBC is one large Obama talking point, and FOX News literally has one hour of news programming a day. So this brings up another question, what do we constitute as press?

Does a TV host meet the same standards as a newspaper columnist would have to meet? Does an opinion delivered that directly incites a crowd already showing tendencies of intolerance and violence constitute an offense? Hilariously, no, it doesn't. Just because I told you to kill someone and you did doesn't make me a murderer. Sure, I'm still responsible from a moral standpoint and someone could charge me with conspiracy, but if I just yelled "Kill someone" into a crowd of people and someone did do it, I'm certainly not going to be held liable for that. The responsibility does not lie upon the press to make sure that it is not purposely inciting riots and violence, but rather upon the assembled group of people. When the people themselves are incapable of weeding the bullshit out of their news garden, it leads them to act upon bullshit as if it were fact. These same people know somehow that they are also allowed by the Constitution to assemble. Unless...

They are assholes. The First Amendment does clearly state that the assembly must be peaceful. This is where shady oppressive men like myself should step in and state that peaceful is in no way defined by the amendment. Coming to assembly armed could be construed as not peaceful, berating other citizens could be construed as not peaceful, being a general dick to anybody and everybody could be construed as not peaceful, and bringing propaganda (signs, pamphlets, shirts, anything sold by Freedom Works, which ironically opposes a government which protects their rights to be dicks) implying the need for violence is certainly over the line. In cases of assembly, free speech can take a back seat (like it does on college campuses).

Hateful speech to no one is nothing; hateful speech to a crowd of hateful people is as much a weapon as a gun is. Suffice to say if you get a group of disenfranchised people, give them a pulpit (FOX News) and a purpose (Fighting against their "oppressive" government), and you are asking for trouble. Men flying into tax buildings out of protest are just a beginning to what sheep with ideologies are capable of. If you don't believe me, think of how many sheep dug and filled the graves in Eastern Europe in the 1940's with just xenophobia as a companion.