*Plain Truth*
columnist: Aaron Emery

Topic: 1st Amendment
We Doth Protest Too Much

---

Assaults on Free Speech and Peaceable Assembly

---

by Aaron Emery
(libertarian)
Monday, February 16, 2009

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A relentless assault on liberty has been underway in the U.S. for decades. There was a time, not too long ago, when Americans celebrated their voices and redressed the government when they felt passionately that it had interfered in the lives of citizens too much. The civil rights movement of the 60's was the last era of free speech in America, even that era ended in the obstruction of liberties and free speech.

The importance of the freedom of speech cannot be overstated. It is the most important right that we have because all others are founded upon it. Without the freedom of speech we would not have the freedom to practice religion, whatever that may be. The founders understood this, which is why their ancestors fled to America and why they made it the FIRST amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They understood that without the absolute guarantee of free speech religious persecution would continue. They also understood that if such religious persecution were to occur in America they would need to be able to petition the government in order to stand against it. Without free speech there is no free practice of religion and without the freedom to assemble and petition there is no ability to maintain that free speech or revoke any government persecution or encroachment of those rights.

Most people forget that the first amendment also guarantees our "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." We usually refer to this as protesting now, which has become a bad word in the American conscience, it elicits images of riot squads, chain link fences, barricades, tear gas, bull horns, mayhem, and inconvenience. Perhaps the latter is the most telling in this situation, inconvenience. As a nation we've become so accustomed to allowing our government to push us around and treat us like poorly-behaved children that we now think we are wrong to protest, that to cause any disturbance is improper of us.

Self-Determined Silence

There are many people who oppose the idea of the government restricting citizens' liberties and even more who do nothing about it. "I don't have time to" or "It won't change anything so why bother?" or "Someone else will do it" are common mantras taken up by those citizens who are too lazy, too ashamed, too afraid, or simply don't care enough to stand up to their government. There is a small group who spend a great deal of time blogging and writing articles, like this one, denouncing these ideas and urging citizens to create change. This is a noble and valid gesture which has helped to create a greater amount of awareness than ever before of the obstructions of our liberties. Is writing and speaking enough though? Is an editorial or a call to action enough to convince the government that they have no choice but to accept our demands? No, unfortunately it's not.

Despite the overwhelming public disapproval of the war in Iraq, despite the overwhelming public demand for impeachment of President Bush while he was still in office, despite the overwhelming public disapproval of the most recent bailouts and the stimulus the government takes no action on behalf of citizens. They simply don't care enough about what you or I think because in spite of all our efforts we have not forced them (government) to care. We allow them to continue to live in their own little bubble safe from any "inconvenience" of protest, they are able to carry on with "business as usual". There is a very small group of citizens who understand the power that we the people truly wield. These are the people who actually use their voices and bodies to address the government and tell them that they will not be held down, that they will not have their liberties trampled upon; that the power we have given them is only through the consent of the governed, the consent of the people.

It is too easy for politicians to ignore our pleas when it is only done in an online blog, or a chat room, or newspaper, or even on TV. It is an entirely different story when a large group of citizens assemble in the same physical location and creates that inconvenience. The government does not like us to assemble and stop traffic, to create a ruckus, to create awareness. They understand the power that we wield when we form en masse. We can shut entire cities down by simply gathering. This is what occurred during the civil rights movements of the 1960s. On August 28, 1963 led by the great Dr. Martin Luther King, citizens gathered in an enormous rally to create the change they were seeking. As many as 300,000 citizens came together in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., they did not ask the government for that change, they demanded it, and they did so "illegally". Dr. King was not granted the permit necessary to rally all these people, yet he did it anyway. The fact is that requiring a permit to rally and petition the government is not even legal. There are laws that may require it, differing by state and city, but these laws are all fake and illegal.

 Again, the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law" regarding the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The point is that even when faced with the consequences of carrying out an "illegal" activity (marching without a permit) these patriots did so in order to inconvenience the government enough that they had to listen. Would the same affect have been achieved if after being denied the permit Dr. King complied and instead wrote an editorial about what could have been? This congregation was able to shut down the entire city of Washington D.C. with their massive demonstration and bring traffic and business to a halt. They created such a stir that "business as usual" could not be conducted. The government tends to take notice when this happens.

The government relies on the inaction of citizens in order to further its own agenda, whether that is raising taxes, intervening in foreign affairs, or promoting racially dividing policy. Politicians are savvy enough to understand that they will not completely silence us today. With the advent of the internet communication is more readily available than at any other time in human history; they understand this and thus seek to immobilize citizens instead. We've been lulled into a false sense of security pertaining our rights because we can almost freely communicate with people all over the country and world. With this false sense of security the government has been fleecing our rights to assemble and petition in order to squash any further citizen action.

Benevolent Government?

In the last few years plans to "reinvigorate" the National Mall in Washington D.C. have come to light. Chief among these is the plan to create a protest pit; this would "allow" protestors to have a safe area to congregate and would even include seats and a media area. Many would think this to be a great gesture by the government to provide an area for demonstration. Do not be deceived by this "philanthropy", this would only serve to constrain citizens and prevent them from affecting "business as usual" by placing them out of sight and out of mind. I should emphasize that this would be the only area on the National Mall where protestors could gather. It is estimated that the area could hold up to 50,000 people, while that sounds like a lot remember that up to 300,000 gathered to march with Dr. King in 1963 and 500,000 gathered to protest prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. What would happen to the capability of gathering hundreds of thousands under these circumstances? It would minimize the effect of protest by creating an artificial limit on the amount of protestors in this area. These elites, who do not want to hear you voicing your concerns and possibly influencing others, seek to remove your ability to influence by requiring protests to take place in this area, thus, marginalizing the power of free speech.

Another heinous example of government attempting to minimize citizens' voices is the pending "Fairness Doctrine". This most unfair doctrine was first enacted in 1949 and enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It required that holders of broadcast licenses must present controversial issues in an "honest, equitable, and balanced way", according to the commission, that is. This basically means that broadcasters must present at least two sides to every issue. This sounds like a good thing but really is just another encroachment on free speech, requiring broadcasters to present a view they do not condone or wish to promote. "Say what we want you to say, not what you think" is basically what the government is doing with this.

The policy was later abolished in 1987, although, as of the writing of this article talk has been re-surfacing in Washington of instilling the doctrine again. Could this be a mere coincidence given the epidemic of bailouts and stimulus' in Washington? Perhaps, it's more likely though, that instilling "fairness" would prevent talk radio from exclusively denouncing (rightfully) government meddling in the market. Again, this is another effort to minimize the power of free speech.

Lessons of the Founders

A basic principle that all Americans must learn to accept is that government will always seek to constrain its citizens. The very nature of government is restrictive, although some of its actions are positive most are not. The ruling elite are not interested in your opinion unless you are a lobbyist or special interest group. This is a harsh reality to accept. The government has nothing to gain by pleasing citizens, save a few powerful individuals and groups. Most people offer nothing of value to the government (in its eyes) other than taxes; this is not to say that we as citizens are of little value to society, rather that the government is of little value to us.

With the exception of a providing a military to protect and courts to uphold laws most people cannot identify something positive the government has done for them, and they shouldn't be able. Their role is not to "give" us our rights, those exist naturally, and they merely created legislation to defend those rights. Their role is not to "allow" us the freedom to practice religion as we desire, that right existed before the government did, they simply uphold those rights with laws. Their role is not to "provide" us a place to assemble and petition, as free thinking citizens we possess that ability beyond any government role. We must realize that any action the government takes in these regards is not benevolent, is not intended to protect our absolute freedoms to exercise those rights, and it is not intended to promote fairness and peace. These actions are merely set forth so the government can pursue its ideals and shape our lives as they see fit, if you happen to espouse those same ideals they are pursuing then you may not ever have strife with them. However, if you hold differing beliefs you will surely have a difficult time pursuing your beliefs and life under such a restrictive power. The Constitution was specifically written to protect that minority voice, that one person who disagrees with everyone else. Thus, under such a system ALL would be allowed to speak freely, practice any religion they see fit, and address the government when they have been denied those rights, not just the majority.

We've become citizen-slaves to this behemoth we call the U.S. government. This monster has created in citizens the mindset that our lives are owned and that we should be ashamed for not doing more for our government, that blind faith in it is true patriotism. It has become so repressive that we actually believe that to speak against it is unpatriotic. America is not just a country; it is a mindset that we may live our lives according to our own desires, so long as those desires do not infringe on others lives. It is the mindset that you own your life and you may speak freely, pray freely, and stand up for yourself when you are denied those rights without fear of reprisal or the disapproval of government. It is the mindset that true patriotism is standing against even your own government when it has committed wrongs. Unless we recapture that mindset we will be forever slaves to the governmental master.

It is a sacred right and duty of American citizens "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

Ordinary citizens that came generations before us did not allow the government to do whatever it wanted without letting them know. The Boston Tea Party, the Stamp Act Riots, the Whisky Rebellion, these were all times when Americans stood up to the government, not just by talking but with actual, physical confrontation. The threat of liberties disappearing at that time was not even present; the conflicts were caused over taxes. Today we barely even protest in public when taxes are raised, let alone when our liberties are stripped of us. If the founding fathers were so wary about taxes being raised then why are we not more wary of liberties and rights being restricted now?

If we heed the advice of the founders, who knew much more about government oppression than any of us can claim, we may be able to prevent the complete loss of our remaining liberties. Once these liberties are lost we will realize that it is too late and know we should have acted sooner. We can act now though, and save those precious liberties we still have. In the words of a great young patriot, Adam Roberts;

"Greatness comes from people that are personally invested."

It's time we honor the personal sacrifices that our forefathers made, it's time we honor the personal hardships that Dr. King and so many others have endured in order to promote liberty and freedom. It's time to be personally invested.

Like this article?  Thumb it.  Disagree?  Leave a comment.  As always thanks for reading.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
23 thumbs so far

©2009 Aaron Emery, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, February 16, 2009
Last modified: Monday, February 16, 2009

The views expressed in this article are those of Aaron Emery only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Aaron Emery is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Aaron Emery of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.