The Descent into a Fascism: An American Tale

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by JohnJefferson, Jan 14, 2012.

  1. JohnJefferson

    JohnJefferson New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Part One

    There comes a time in each of our lives when we must decide whether or not what we do is right or wrong. When we come to this decision it is invariably based upon the lessons we’ve learned concerning our culture, social mores, and political and religious values. The founding fathers of America understood this and instituted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to ensure that the totalitarian ideals that were the foundation of many monarchies were not allowed to flourish within the New World. At the same time they also had an inherent distrust of the common man, essentially believing that their basic beliefs, which were founded upon cultural identity, social mores, and religious values, were in direct opposition to this basic concepts of democracy. With this understanding they created the constitution in order to ensure that we as Americans were ensured very basic rights, but also, that we could not undermine those basic freedoms because of our own biases.

    This fear of cultural identity and religious interference was one of the reasons why the Constitution instituted an electoral college, the three branches of government, and the separation of church and state. However, there has always been an element within government and society that tried to undermine these freedoms in the name of decency and national pride.

    Since the foundation of the United States of America there have been numerous attempts to reign in these basic fundamental rights, and to a degree they have had limited success, it has only been recently, originally started under the banner of feminism and social justice that we have actually began to evolve from a democracy into a fascist state.

    Recent examples of the violation of these freedoms are seen in the government’s attempts to censor the internet and the implementation of the Patriot Act. However the Patriot Act could not have been instituted without the creation of an atmosphere that allowed it to occur, an atmosphere that was given birth under the guise of social justice.

    The most recent example can be seen in the censorship of obscenity. What most people do not understand is that the Constitution did not mention obscenity because it understood the slippery slope we stand on when we begin to place limits of our freedom of expression and speech, based on a morally subjective agenda, whether it be religious, social, or otherwise. The moment that you begin to determine what someone can or cannot express, is the exact moment that you begin to limit what one can and cannot think, and in so doing, begin to dictate the correct way someone should and shouldn’t behave. You cannot have a free country unless everyone within that country is free to think and behave as they wish, unless of course those freedoms infringe on someone else.

    Now freedom of speech and expression do not include the freedom to do whatever one wishes, but it does allow each and every one of us to express how we wish to behave. The ability to do what one wishes and the ability to express one’s wishes, are two completely different things, and this is the exact reason why the founding fathers ensured that each and every one us retained those rights. In fact the Bill of Rights was instituted because the founding father’s saw attempts on these freedoms from the very beginning.

    One could logically assume that we as a people would be able to see the reasoning behind these rights and do our best to insure that they continued to exist in their most fundamental forms, however, because we have allowed our social, moral, and cultural values to interfere and influence aspects of our freedom of speech and expression, we have essentially allowed ourselves to slowly slip into a fascist state.

    This isn’t just occurring in the United States, it’s happening all over the free world. The root of these attacks on our rights stems, not just from nationalism, but also our inability to separate church and moral ideologies from the state.

    An excellent example of this can be seen in the censorship of certain forms of pornography, forms that, although socially repugnant, are protected under the constitution. In particular bestiality and child pornography. Each and every one us can say unequivocably that these forms of expression are repugnant and vile, however, what we fail to see, because we have allowed our social, religious, and cultural mores to bias us, is that the protection of these forms of speech and expression are essential to ensuring that we maintain a free society.

    This argument does not extend to the production of these forms of pornography nor specific acts involved, because they are obviously illegal, however it does extend to whether or not someone can think about these things or express them freely, even if that means viewing those acts.

    The first attack on our essential rights came when in the early 1980s the supreme court decided that the mere possession of these forms of literature was illegal, and that because they were indecent, they were not protected under the constitution. The argument was that these types of expression did not exist at the time the constitution was written, so the founding father’s could not understand the implications at the time, so the justices ruled in light of the spirit of the constitution, rather than the actual literal interpretation. Something to keep in mind, however, is that it would be highly unlikely that the founding fathers, who were well versed in Greek philosophy, were not aware of the existence or potential for the existence of these forms of expression, especially with the mention of pederasty in the works of Plato and others. Also there were numerous poems and literary and artistic works at the time that also could’ve been construed as child pornography to the common man. If the founding fathers had not intended for those forms of speech and expression to be protected, even with the foreknowledge of their existence, wouldn’t they have excluded them from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution?

    The founding fathers in fact believed that it was the essential right of every person to think and believe whatever they wish, so if one decided to look at a piece of pornography that depicted a child, animal, or the suffering of another individual, their should be no ammendments that allowed the government to violate those rights, nor can it be assumed that the argument that viewing depictions of these acts could cause additional harm to the people or creatures involved be sufficient to counter the value of freedom of speech and expression. In fact the supreme court’s argument was not based on legal precedent, but rather the social and cultural values of the justices involved. In supporting these laws, the Supreme Court inadvertently created a precedent that allowed for increasing restrictions on these forms of speech, that were eventually used to support the institution of even more restrictive laws such the Patriot Act that helped to not only censor our speech, but our freedom to express our religious and spiritual beliefs.

    The current attack on Freedom of Speech and Expression essentially began 30 years ago, when it was determined that child pornography and other forms of pornography were indecent and as a result not protected under the constitution. Keep in mind that prior to this decision there were other cases involving works that were considered indecent that were eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. The reasoning behind the decision made in the 1980s had more to do with the ability of law enforcement to prosecute those people they deem to be criminals. Essentially the Supreme Court decided that the founding principals of the constitution were less important than the ability of the government to prosecute those people they decided were deviants. In essence this set a precedent that extends to today.
     
  2. JohnJefferson

    JohnJefferson New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Part Two

    We can see the ramifications within laws such as the three strikes law or the ability of certain states to quarantine sex offenders, violent offenders, and career criminals they deem a threat to society, even after they have served their sentences. Although socially palatable, the fact of the matter is that a person’s capacity to do harm (because each and every one of us have that capacity) should in no way infringe on their basic rights, however the government can and does intern these people with the basic idea of social rehabilitation in mind, in other words, unless they begin to behave and think in a way deemed socially acceptable they can be kept in state custody, and as a result forfeit their rights under the Constitution.

    Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge regarding the Constitution understands that the founding fathers created the constitution to prevent this very sort of things. The founding fathers understood, perhaps better than we do today, that any violation of one’s civil liberties based on religious or social mores, is the first step to a fascist state. Although at the time these laws were implemented, we could not perceive their eventual effect on our basic freedom, we can see it now. In fact we can see the first steps occurring within Guantanamo Bay where the government still holds hundreds of people, some American citizens, without any formal charges, only the assumption that they pose a threat to the government. These people do not necessarily need to act on these threats, but rather provide intellectual or spiritual support for entities that are perceived as a threat to the American people, in fact this article itself could be perceived as such and warrant my own investigation by authorities.

    So long as we continue to allow these laws to remain in effect, we put ourselves at risk. We restrict our basic right to express ourselves, regardless of how another person perceives that expression. It is only when we overturn the laws that have set us on this path of repression and fascism, that we can begin to work under the principles of a democracy. It is only when everyone is free to view whatever they wish to view, whether pornographic, or otherwise, to think whatever they wish to think, whether contrary to the government’s wishes or otherwise, that we will again have a free society. Until that time what we can look forward to is increased repression of the people and the interference of the government within our day to day lives.

    The truth of the matter is that when we begin to censor even the smallest idea, we open the doors for the censorship of any of our ideas. With that in mind we have to understand that freedom of speech and expression can only exist when everyone is free to speak whatever they wish and express themselves however they wish. The fact that these expressions may be contrary to the publics wishes or may express a desire to cause harm, are not sufficient reason to prevent people from having the freedom to do so. Until we understand this on a very basic level, we will always leave ourselves open to further fascist repression.
     
  3. JohnJefferson

    JohnJefferson New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    double post
     

Share This Page