What Freedom of Speech means

Recently, Piers Morgan interviewed a gun rights advocate Larry Pratt [1]. In this interview, he does call the interviewee "an unbelievably stupid man" which is admittedly a rather odd turn of phrase to use on national television as an interviewer. The conversation continues and it's clear neither man has much respect for the opinions of the other.

Even so, we see that, in response, gun rights advocates (lead by infowars.com [2]) have created a petition to deport Mr. Morgan. [3] This is utter nonsense. For anyone who holds the second amendment in such high regard, one could expect that other amendments to the constitution would be deemed of great import, as well.

Take, for instance, the first amendment. It protects not just free speech but also freedom of the press. [4] To be precise, it also protects the freedom to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" which, in theory, protects the right of those offended to petition. At the very same time, it does not protect them from making fools of themselves with their ignorance of the rest of the first amendment.

Piers Morgan is in no way inciting to riot, calling "fire" in a crowded theater, advocating violence, esposing any form of treason, or performing any number of other violiations of the reasonable limits on free speech or freedom of the press. To deport him would be create a new precedent which has never existed - the right to not hear opinions you disagree with.

For anyone who is baffled by the desire to deport a journalist for sharing his views, please consider signing and sharing a different petition to remind the gun-rights advocates of the first amendment. Than you for your time.

[1] Larry Pratt interview
[2] "The Law Says Deport Piers Morgan"
[3] Petition to deport Piers Morgan
[4] First Amendment to the US Constitution

A perspective on death

I'm guessing you've heard that Osama bin Laden is dead. What does this mean? What comes next? How do we react?

As we just celebrated the Jewish holiday of Passover, a quotation comes to mind. After Pharoah's army was drowned in the Red Sea, the angels began to rejoice. The Almighty chided them, saying, "My creatures are dying and you're singing songs!"

Note, though, that this reprimand is not directed at the Jews who are also celebrating on the far side of the banks. I see this as a distinction in what is being celebrated. On the one hand, the angels have the perspective to see the event from an uninvolved position. It is their responsibility to take the good of all into account. The Jews, on the other hand, are celebrating their freedom and the inability of their former masters to take it away from them.

So - are we the angels or the Jews in this story? Or are we some of both?

As for how the world will respond, I predict this will make the odds of a Republican presidential candidate beating President Obama nearly insurmountable, barring an event of the magnitude of Katrina or a double-dip Great Recession. I also predict a small contingent of conspiracy theorists who will be reported on, of course, since they make the event seem controversial in a way that makes modern media salivate.

Pakistan will face many questions, some insightful and some downright silly, over how bin Laden could have be hiding so close to a training base. My coworker rightly points out that, perhaps, there are a great many fortified mansions in Pakistan given the tribal war lords common in politics of the region. Perhaps the Pakistani intelligence even provided critical assistance in the gathering of knowledge and planning that led to the raid. We as civilians will likely never know the truth.

In the meantime, let us not rejoice in death but rather in a respite from the slavery of hatred. Perhaps it will be short lived though I hope it will lead to an end to hostilities on all sides.

In peace,
Adam

First Debate wrap-up

The debate on Friday night was very interesting, and showed both that Senator Obama and Senator McCain agree on several issues, and have very different strategies on others. However, only Senator Obama seemed willing to admit that he agrees with Senator McCain on several points.

A few of the best debate wrap-up articles I've found are the following:

1. New York Times fact checking: Refuting some of the more outlandish claims and misquotes by each candidate.


2. New York Times live debate blogging: Summarizing the highlights.


3. Politico's roundup: Another good summary of the highlights.

The most powerful lines that stuck in my memory were both by Senator Obama:

“You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong,” Obama said about the Iraq war. “You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong. If the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.”[1]

and:

"I've got a bracelet, too."[1]

In addition, as quoted in Senator McCain campaign's YouTube video that came out just after the debate last night, Senator Obama several times indicated that he agreed with Senator McCain. Why would Senator McCain see this as a negative trait? It shows bipartisanship, a spirit of cooperation, and rational thought.

The quote from Senator McCain that stayed with me was his repetition of "Obama doesn't understand." Unfortunately for Senator McCain, Senator Obama's performance in the debate proved otherwise. They both understand the situation, they just disagree on the best resolution.

I agree with the snap polls- this debate was a win for Senator Obama.

[1] McCain on offense; Obama plays it cool