Tim's Favorite Blogs
Media Matters
Blog Directories
Sunday, November 4. 2007
Rights and the Freakshow
As many people know — I’ve made no secret of it here — I have had a subscription to Playboy magazine for most of the past 32 years. In recent years I subscribed to their online flagship, the Cyber Club as well. Yearly subscriptions, for those who are wondering … you know who you are!
Part of the package with the Cyber Club is their Playboy forum, which has tens of thousands of topics — called “threads” by the technically savvy — that focus mostly on the models and the photography and videos; what we’d like to do … well, you get the drift there. It pretty much fuels any and all fantasies, especially when the models themselves participate … aye-yi-yi … a recent exchange by October Coed of the Month Amber Elise just about burned my Macintosh to toast! Talk about fueling fantasies!
These “threads” will often get off into other topics; a recent one had to do with “Dog the Bounty Hunter” getting his show axed from the A&E channel. Good riddance. Never liked the guy or his program.
Well, the subject of Fred Phelps and his clan of religious freaks came up as a topic, specifically because the Maryland jury found in favor of the plaintiff, Albert Snyder, who sued Phelps and his church for picketing the funeral of his son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder.
Read my previous blog for more on the specifics of the case and the modus operandi of the Westboro Baptist Freakshow.
Understandably, several of the “posters” in the forum were disturbed and offended by the Westboro Baptist Freakshow and their picketing of the funerals of men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I find it offensive, and in fact in my previous blog stated that part of me thinks the verdict was good, but another part of me, a bigger part, has concerns about the First Amendment. It specifically says:
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.
The part in question is bolded: “abridging the freedom of speech.” That pretty much sums it up. The authors of the Bill of Rights, principally, James Madison, wanted to ensure that the citizens — and visitors to — the United States would be free to voice their opinions without interference from government. The First Amendment isn’t an abstract theory, it’s pretty concrete: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.
The civil case involving Albert Snyder and Fred Phelps puts a little wrinkle in the equation though. Government isn’t abridging the free speech of the Westboro Baptist Freakshow, a jury of their peers found Phelps and his clan liable for causing mental and emotional distress with their speech. Does a civil action reach the threshold of abridging the speech of the church group? Had the clan demonstrated in front of the capital, instead of at the funeral of a fallen Marine (or soldier, sailor, airman) there would be no lawsuit. The case revolves around the where of the incident.
States have been writing laws specifically aimed the Westboro Baptist Freakshow to keep them from demonstrating at cemeteries and the feds wrote and passed a law, signed by President Bush last year that prohibits people from demonstrating in, at or near federal cemeteries. The question central to this then is: are funerals private if they are performed on publicly accessed land, most especially federal cemeteries which are themselves public property?
Can’t imagine there are people who would wish to deny families like the Snyders the time and place to grieve for their lost family member without harassment from groups like the Westboro Baptist Freakshow, Other than the Freakshow, but, at the same time my bigger concern is the erosion of my civil liberties every time someone proposes a new law banning someone from doing something somewhere so as not to offend someone else.The sad part is, too many of my fellow citizens think this is okay. “As long as the law doesn’t affect me,” the thought process goes, “then it’s okay.” Well, it affects all of us. Everyday some nut job religious organization like Pat Boone’s is looking to restrict the freedom to watch what we want on TV or access on the Internets. Robert D. Zicari and his wife, Janet Romano were indicted in 2003 for producing adult films, some rather extreme adult films, but popular enough that Zicari and Romano not only remain in business, it flourishes.
The case against Extreme Associates goes on, after an appeal that led to the charges being dropped, and then another appeal, by Alberto Gonzales, that got the charges reinstated. Since 2005. My guess is the federal authorities are going to let this one just slide away unnoticed as Alberto Gonzales rides off into the sunset and his replacement sits in the glare of the Senate confirmation hearings.
Just to be clear, I have no interest in their content, it’s pretty gross and I have a high tolerance for adult entertainment. But there is a market for Extreme Associates and judging from the design of their web site, a pretty sizable market.
The problem with a case against Extreme Associates and laws written to restrict the freedom of a group like The Westoboro Baptist Freakshow is that it inoculates us from the continued erosion of our rights, as stated in the Bill of Rights, buy laws like the 2006 “Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act” that limits where and when protestors can demonstrate at national cemeteries, the Patriot Act, which goes so far in eroding the 4th Amendment, it is practically non-existent. The Fourth Amendment to the constitution reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As it does the Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
People are “OK” with our government having unfettered access to our personal lives, rationalizing that nothing is private anymore, and laws like the Patriot Act are designed to keep us safe, despite the fact that even the F.B.I. acknowledges the terrorists used as an excuse to create this abomination of a law were aware of the government intrusion into phones and the internet shortly after 9/11 and have used other means to communicate.
Americans are by and large a lazy people when it comes to civic responsibility, as long as the government is “watching out for them.” As long as we can watch the football games on Sunday, all’s right with the world.
And as long as groups like the Westboro Baptist Freakshow can be stopped from picketing at the funerals of fallen soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, then good. There should be limits on free speech.
Whenever I read that, I can’t help wondering, does the person advocating “limits on free speech” realize it’s an oxymoron? If there are limits, then it is not free.
But someone is taking offense to Playboy having an online presence and making available over state lines their hard copy product; i.e.: magazines, DVD’s, desk calendars, etc. What’s to stop some over zealous prosecutor in Bumfuck, Kentucky from bringing a criminal case against PEI in order to garner votes from his local constituency? Some of the more religiously fanatical people in his community most assuredly think viewing naked women is an abominable sin and therefore violates their community standards, despite the number of people in that community who have purchased said product through Playboy’s web site. It’s been done in recent years.
The point is, the people who want to prosecute Extreme Associates and stop the Westboro Baptist Freakshow from doing what they do, are not happy when they succeed on those fronts. They see it as reason to continue. Same with our president’s penchant for eliminating the Bill of Rights — except for the Second Amendment, he needs the support of the NRA — if they succeed with these assaults on the freedoms of a few, they have succeeded in assaulting the freedoms of all U.S. citizens. If we are to claim — and be — a nation that promotes freedom because we are a beacon of freedom, then we have to accept that the Westboro Baptist Freakshow and Extreme Associates have a right to not only exist, but to express themselves in the manner in which they themselves deem fit. That’s freedom.
One last thing, there really isn’t time or space enough to get into issues like child-endangerment and child pornography; my point with Extreme Associates deals specifically with those of legal age, be they producers, actors, distributors or consumers, which for the majority of the United States is 18.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Calendar
|
February '12 |
|
||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Quicksearch
Categories
AD Links
Referrals
Syndicate This Blog
Blog Administration
Powered by
TheForkesReport