C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Tell Me, what is the difference between dissent and active attacks on property and income?Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.
For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.
You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.
The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.
You see, there was a time when people would just ostracize someone for having the crassness of airing a racist attitude.
Now, they actively go after your property, your wealth, your income.
So tell Me. When people are so afraid of the consequences that they will never exercise free speech, how can we say that we have free speech?
The Jews were free to exercise their faith in Nazi Germany. They just had to accept the 'consequences' of that faith, right?
Wrong.
Youre confusing First Amendment protections as they apply to the relationship between citizens and their government, where government is prohibited from placing an undue burden on the right to free expression.
That has noting to do whatsoever with the Sterling issue.
The Sterling issue is occurring only on the context of the private sector, where Constitutional protections dont apply because liberty is not jeopardized as a consequence of government overreach.
The state isnt attacking property or income, and Sterling agreed to be subject to the punitive measures hes now sustaining as a condition of joining the NBA.