Blackout In The Age Of Information

If you are reading this today, January 18th, 2012, then you are lucky. These words, saved on a server somewhere, accessible by typing a name into or clicking a link on your web browser, which sends a request to that server for the information over the various interlinked computers that comprise the Internet, are being displayed before you for your perusal, having survived an arduous journey at incredible speeds through various and sundry networks and via any number of different types of wires or conduits. To you, the user, the reader, it is virtually instantaneous, and you are left unaware of the sequence of events that must transpire for this information to reach your eyes.

As Arthur C. Clarke once noted (paraphrasing), any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to us. No doubt, the Internet and all the things that are on it, appear to arrive magically at the window that sits before you now, with just a few mouse clicks or keystrokes or swipes of a finger on glass. Not unlike a car, the mechanics of what transpires do not enter in to our minds when we turn the key on the Internet. It is just there, ubiquitous, waiting for us.

What if it that were not so?

Losing Your Religion

Her name is Jessica Ahlquist, she is 16-year-old, lives and goes to school in Cranston, Rhode Island, and is one of the braver people you will meet. Why? Because she dared to stand up and demand that the First Amendment be respected in her school.

The problem: a banner, hanging in Cranston High School West since 1963, which starts with the words  “Our Heavenly Father” and concludes with the word, “Amen,” and is headed with the phrase “School Prayer.”

Ms. Ahlquist took exception to such a blatant Christian display in her school. She sued the school. And on January 11th, 2012, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Ronald R. Lagueux ruled in her favor, in a detailed ruling which outlined the genesis and the course of the banner and the subsequent public squabble over it. In the end, Justice Lagueux made it clear that the whole history of events pointed to a clear and distinct attempt to use Christian religion in a public school in a manner inconsistent with the First Amendment prohibition against government establish or endorsing a religion.

Perhaps it goes without saying, those of Christian faith have been less than charitable in their disagreement.

Speech Is Not Free

Although we constantly talk about "freedom of speech," we have to be careful exactly what we assign to that concept. As personified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is delineated this way:

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.

This only states that the Federal government shall not pass laws which limit the right of the individual citizen to express themselves freely. Simply put: you can say what you like. What it does not do, is take away the absolute right to prohibit speech, as the oft used example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater illustrates. In essence, you are free to speak your mind, as long as that speech does not directly endanger the welfare of others.

This broad scope of speech means that we are subject to dealing with people who are more than willing to fill the air with all manner of tripe: homophobia, racism, antisemitism, abject ignorance, conspiracy theories, and the like. These things may make the blood of decent Americans boil, but it is intrinsically important that people holding such socially contrary views be allowed their freedom to express them, for that is the price for our freedom of speech. We cannot, of good conscience, suppress the right of others to express themselves, then claim it solely as our own. To work, freedom of speech must apply equally to all Americans.

What many fail to realize, when it comes to freedom of speech, is that the speech is never really free. You may say anything you wish, within reason. In return, those who have heard you may say anything they wish, including professing outrage at what you said. If you accept that the First Amendment guarantees your right to speak your mind, you must tacitly accept that it also provides that right to others, especially where they want to speak their mind about you. More importantly than that, if others choose to take actions based upon what you said, unless they are civilly or criminally punishable acts, they have every right to do so.

The First Amendment's ultimate goal, was to ensure that the people could speak out against the government, without fear of reprisal. The Founding Fathers wanted the Federal Government to face the music, and be forced to listen to voices of dissent, even where those voices of dissent spoke from ignorance or prejudice. It was important to them that the voice of the American people never be capriciously silenced by a government in the throes of wreaking havoc with civil liberties and the law. That same idea was implicit in all manner of speech, whereby those who could raise their voice to expound one point of view, could not simply deny those who would oppose them a means of counterpoint.

So it happens that, when someone expresses an opinion that the public finds rude, insensitive, racist, classicist, offensive, or otherwise, there is recourse to call out these statements, exposing them as such, and allowing the rest of the citizenry a chance for rebuttal, through whatever means are at their disposal. Far from being injurious to the right of freedom of speech of the initial speaker, it is, in fact, the successful application of the principle of free speech, wherein others have the right to refute what is said by someone else.

Those who operate in the mass media (television, radio, blogging, newspapers) are not entitled to some superior form of First Amendment protection, merely because of the medium in which they operate. After all, the company that hires them is free to fire them or not renew their show; free speech is not compromised because their position is at the behest of someone else, and they are subject to other strictures. A company may seek to save its reputation, which affects the advertising dollars it reaps, by removing someone who has made controversial statements. Of course, in our current society, they are more like to hire someone because they make controversial statements, in order to attract listeners/readers.

Those who claim censorship because their statements lead to their downfall, are better off looking to the question of why their statements caused such ire in the public realm. They might discover that the reason for the outcry against them may have something to do with their narrow-minded view of society, and their lack of a true connection to humanity. Simply because a person has an opinion, does not mean the opinion is relevant, factual, or important. That someone has access to a public forum to disseminate their views, does not automatically imbue them with the gift of truth. It is as possible now, as it always has been, to open one's mouth and look the fool, rather than keeping it shut to avoid the appearance. The most important facet of freedom of speech, is knowing when not to speak.

The Uncivil War, Redux

It can no longer be considered a fluke -- Representative Joe Wilson has some company.

To be fair, Joe Wilson was never really alone, though his ascension to the highest peak of incivility was well documented. Beyond shouting down and verbally lambasting the President of the United States, the only possibility to eclipse such a moment of indiscretion would be insulting an emissary from an intergalactic species, during a first contact situation.

Subsequent to this, there have been two equally high profile incidents of incivility, which lead me to question the status of the human species as predominant because of our highly-developed cerebral cortex. Now, for sheer power and gall, neither of these incidents compare to Representative Wilson's faux pas, but they do highlight the fact that, at least for the 'American' branch of the human family tree, social civility has gone the way of the dinosaurs:

- Serena William, tennis professional, champion, fashion designer, and media darling, reacted in a most unbecoming manner to a line judge at the U.S. Open, when called for a "foot fault." Her demeanor was less than professional, when she suggested she would a tracheotomy of the judge with her racket (or something to that effect). She has subsequently apologized.

- Kanye West, musician, author, music producer, decided to interrupt the acceptance speech of Taylor Swift during the MTV Video Music Awards (which is odd, since I was unaware MTV played music videos anymore), to lament Beyoncé Knowles not winning that particular award. An apology appeared on his blog after the event.

Apparently, live television has the effect of incapacitating the sensibilities of those susceptible to its effects. Some radiation or magnetism seems to seep into the brains of the unknowing, causing them to blurt out their innermost thoughts. It is the television equivalent of road rage.

Perhaps, in the end, that's what it is: visceral, unfocused, pent up rage. Bottled up in a vessel of human construction, under the right amount of pressure, the vessel cracks and spews forth invective, vitriol, and unmitigated emotion. We cannot know how long it stewed or how much of this foul concoction brewed there, deep in the dark recesses of the brain, before containment could no longer be maintained. We only see the end result: Krakatoa writ on the human scale.

It is easy to pick on these public figures, for they had nowhere to hide, trapped in the baleful glare of the camera eye. With no one or no thing to hide behind, they are now the easy fodder for those who see them as pariahs, or as poor role models, or embarrassing reminders of times past. And yet, who amongst us has not done the same? I mentioned road rage previously, and perhaps these are only the most visible signs that our society has lost its capacity for dealing with the stress of our everyday lives, devolving into a maelstrom of irrational behavior. We all do it, whether it be a full-throated roar or muttering under our breath, in front of associates, or family, or even children.

If we are wont to wonder how our society got here, perhaps we need look no further than our country's past. American society has always been pushing against the strictures and restrictions placed on it by many a legal and/or moral authority; the nation was founded mainly by groups who chafed under the restrictions placed on them by the governments and religious authorities of their original home countries. They came here to establish their own communities, with their own codes, free of the condemnation and scorn they knew at home, only to be forced to endure it again when the Americas were colonized and rules and taxes established by foreign governments. This fomented revolution, a revolution that was stitched together by compromise, because while all agreed that freedom was preferable to tyranny, they also believed that should be allowed to maintain their individual way of life, even under the auspices of a more centralized government of their own creation.

So, while foreign control was replaced by more localized control, there was still the feeling of constriction. The States grappled with the Federal government, claiming their power was inviolate, Constitution or no. This came to a head with the abolitionist movement and The Civil War, when State's rights came into direct conflict with the Constitutional idea that "all men are created equal." Even that war, however, could not quell the feelings of the average American, that somehow others had too much control, too much power over them. This would continue to be an issue, flaring up in the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, McCarthyism, etc. States continued (and do still) to fight the Federal government, keeping the Supreme Court busy, as they tried to define the lines of control.

With each passing year, with every event that transpires, it seems the field widens, the divisions become broader, and civility becomes more watered down. Those who profess peace, compromise, consensus, and integrity, are easy targets for marksmen and for pundits. It is far easier to cling to ones own beliefs, to inveigh against change, to see others as a foe to be defeated, rather than a person with the same rights and privileges as you. It is far easier to throw up barriers to discourse, than to tear down walls of ignorance. It is easier to see the world as solid, unchanging, than it is to realize it is fluid and dynamic.

Perhaps there was never any true civility in this nation, only a grudging respect, tempered by the need to provide and to survive. Maybe, back when the longevity of the United States was not assured, it was easier to put aside differences, rather than show weakness to be exploited by a potential enemy. Given that we are more than two centuries on, maybe the pretense is no longer maintained. Now, the petty squabbles and counter-productive clashes of ideals are able to break out and run, unimpeded, throughout the land, bringing us to a point where we no longer feel bound to the rules of social, civilized society.

In the end, we stand on the brink of watching our peace and tranquility torn asunder, by ego and hubris. If we would see our nation survive another two centuries, we must take these breaches, these lapses of judgment and character, and use them as lessons for future generations. A house divided against itself will not stand -- a nation united by compromise will not fall.

The Tyranny of Ignorance

We do not know tyranny in the United States of America.

There are some who may argue this point. They believe that the current administration is "destroying the American way-of-life" and "tearing down our freedoms" and "making us a socialist state."

They have no idea.

You see, if America were currently undergoing a radical transformation via a tyrannical government, they would not be around to be outraged or shocked, or even to scream out their rage at the government. Their freedom of assembly would be curtailed, their freedom to speak snuffed out, their weapons taken, and likely, they would be imprisoned without charge or trial.

And yet, there they stand, in defiance of "tyranny."

We do not know tyranny in the United States of America.

We do not know the banging on the door in the middle of night, the pistol-whipping of a family, being dragged into trucks and driven away, never to be seen again.

We do not know the subterfuge of an election held, results announced, then overruled by leaders on high, who impose their own will on the people, and stifle opposition by arresting and indefinitely detaining the leaders of that opposition.

We do not know the slaughter of protesters seeking redress of their grievances, being gunned down wholesale in the street by mobs loyal to the government.

We do not know the deprivation caused by unscrupulous government agents taking relief supplies earmarked for the starving and destitute masses, and turning them into profits for themselves.

We do not know tyranny.

We live in a free society, as free as one can be short of anarchy, where government makes rules, based on the will of the people, tempered with the desire to do the most amount of good for the greatest number of people. Those rules must pass not one, but three tests, as there is a balance of power, each branch of government reinforcing and regulating the other two. The Constitution provides the unshakable bedrock upon which all of society's laws are made, ensuring that in the end, no rule may harm the basic freedoms of an American citizen.

The people of this country are given myriad ways to alter the functions and fit of their government at every level, from whom they elect to represent them, to what powers those representatives have, right down to altering the Constitution itself if that is required. Any citizen may petition their representative to consider their view in crafting the laws of the land, and the people of this country can hold their elected leaders to account, via the ballot box.

And none of this has changed.

The Constitution has not been struck down or defaced. The branches of Federal government are intact. Martial law has not been declared. People are not being rounded up. The press is still allowed to report the news.

There is no tyranny, unless you count the tyranny of ignorance. It is not helpful to be mired in the past, to claim somehow that America was "better" or "truer" at one time, and that somehow the nation we now inhabit is a shadow of its former self. For the nation that is America today, has been built on the foundation of our Constitution, shepherded through good times and bad by our government, and is still a republic of, by, and for the people. So long as we can come together, work through our problems constructively, without malice or bitterness, our nation can continue to be strong. If we continue to wallow if partisanship, if we allow our fear to overwhelm logic, if we choose to trade barbs rather than ideas, we stand to lose everything we have built here, and for which so many have sacrificed so much.

We must remember that, despite any differences between individuals, we are one nation, conceived in liberty and bound by the desire to live our lives in peace and freedom. The price for this is putting down our preconceptions, finding compassion within our hearts, and making compromises to further the general welfare. If we cannot do this, then yes, out country will no longer be the one we recognize.

Liberty's Price

We are so far removed from the original struggle to found the United States, so distant from the events that led to its creation, that it is probably very hard for most of us to imagine what it was like to live in Colonial America. We can no more wrap our heads around the idea of being ruled by a foreign power, than we can understand the motivations of those who perpetrated September 11Th. The idea that at one time, the people of America were subjects of Great Britain, subject to the whims of its king and unrepresented in Parliament, seems almost whimsical now.

It was not so in 1775.

The Founding Fathers fought a protracted, costly, and often contentious war to pry the United States free from the grip of Britain. In doing so, they knew that the end result would have to be a nation, conceived in freedom and liberty, that would have to do anything within its power to ensure that its citizens would never again fall under the thrall of another sovereign nation, nor be subjugated by their own government. The Bill of Rights was the foundation upon which the new nation was laid. It said the government would have no right to limit the freedom to speak, the freedom to worship, or the freedom of the press to report on how the country was being run. It said the government could not simply take what belonged to its citizens, nor charge them with crimes without some form of due process, and that people had the right to know what they were being accused of, and by whom. They also made sure that the government would not make them surrender their arms, to ensure the ability of the nation to raise martial forces in time of need and to make sure that the citizenry could resist, should the government turn repressive.

While it can be said that these precepts were earth-shaking in the 18Th Century, the founders knew that no half measures would do. They tried to anticipate what it would take to hold a nation of such disparate heritage together over generations, and made sure that the Constitution could be amended to adapt to change. They made assumptions about the course of history to come, hoping to ensure that the foundation remained solid long after they were gone. If our current place in the world is any indication, this new birth of freedom and the growing pains that came after, led to a nation that is strong, proud, and even more diverse than the founders could have imagined.

But there was a cost inherent to the liberty thus created.

That the government ceded the right to limit the freedom to speak, meant that in addition to the liberation of being able to criticize people, institutions, and even the government itself, in a manner which fostered public debate, created mutual understanding, and promoted growth, groups with less than admirable aims would have the right to stand upon their soapboxes and spew forth venom and vitriol. Sanity, reason, and logic would have to share the field with ignorance, intransigence, and intolerance. Any reasonable person would have to face the possibility of being set upon by howling mobs of the narrow-minded.

It could be no other way.

The founders had seen, first-hand, how a totalitarian regime would do whatever it took to suppress even mild dissent. They knew that for there to be true freedom, the good would have to be taken with the bad. One suspects they hoped, beyond hope, that as the nation grew, the bond of community would overwhelm any opposition. In essence, they were counting on, as Lincoln put it, "the better angles of our nature" to naturally suppress dissent. Freedom and liberty would do a better job reigning in the destructive tendencies of some, than a heavy-handed government.

They were eternal optimists.

The history of our country has seen the collection and distribution of disturbing ideologies, ideologies that have no basis in fact or reason, but that persist because they play to people's fears. Fear is a powerful motivator -- it is built in to us as a defense mechanism, causing us to flee if we can and fight if we cannot flee. Fear can be harnessed, used to fuel intolerance, cruelty, hypocrisy, and greed. Fear can be turned into a weapon, and a justification.

And so, on June 10Th, 2009, the dream of a nation conceived in liberty and freedom was weakened, by the act of a anti-Semitic, racist, hate-monger, who, for no reason we can fathom, decided to attack a memorial to an event, the likes of which the world did not know until the 20Th Century, an event he denied even happened. He turned a sick, twisted, misguided ideology into action, fear-inducing, hate-spreading action. Because of this, a decent man, a man paid to maintain peace and order and to protect the lives of others, paid the ultimate price, in laying down his life to stop a madman before he could kill others. A family has been deprived of a father. Parents have been deprived of a son.

We are outraged. We are stunned, both by the act itself, but more importantly, by the ideology that spawned it. We want retribution. We want the flaming sword of justice to swoop down from the heavens, and smite these hate-filled animals. We want to strip away their freedom, forfeit their lives, as payment for their ignorance. We want them dead.

It cannot be that way. The founders knew this.

If we are to honor our country, if we are to honor the memory of every person who has died, in any way, to sustain our freedom, then we cannot devolve to the level of such extremists. We have rule of law in this country, and we must use it, and wisely, to fight these hate-mongers at every turn. We must show that the vast bulk of the citizenry in the United States rejects fear and hatred, rejects anti-Semitism and racism, rejects anything that is contrary to the greater good. They must be repudiated, their views torn down, the truth shouted from every rooftop. We must drown their ideology of hate with the weight of decency and law. We must take this moment, take this opportunity afforded us by this tragedy, and turn it into action. All free Americans, all good citizens, must rise as one and say "Enough!" to the forces that would divide us and make us afraid of each other. We must make it clear to the forces of intolerance, that America may grant them the freedom to espouse their views, but we do not grant them the power to control us with fear.

Let us put a fallen hero in our thoughts, put his murderer behind bars, and put those who would lionize such a coward on notice, that their days of intolerance are numbered.