The First Amendment ~ Part 4: It Ain't All Governmental Prosecution

Personally, I think Harrison Butker is a total douche bag. The previous statement is my personal opinion. I thought his speech at a Catholic college was incredibly demeaning and offensive to all women no matter what their life choices may be. Again, this is my personal opinion.

Do I think he should be fired from the Kansas City Chiefs? No, not my call, although if he did, I wouldn't argue with their right to can his misogynistic ass right outta the locker room. 

I commented on this very issue on a friend's post on FaceBook, writing:

As specious and ridiculous as the speech was, he is entitled to his opinion. He is also entitled to address those graduates espousing Catholic doctrine at a Catholic school. I may not agree with what he says, but he does get to say it, and I will fight tooth and nail for his right to express his beliefs. He was not urging violence, genocide, or the annihilation of another country. ..and that was okay on a whole lot of other campi. His speech was probably appropriate for his audience.

Look, there are people that believe deeply in what he said. He did nothing to hurt the team. To demand his removal is really a form of censorship and a challenge to free speech. And it has NOTHING to do with football.

It seemed to be implied that he should be chastised or penalized in some way. He was invited to speak probably because of his beliefs. He gets to say them to that audience. So long as he's not advocating violence or yelling fire in a theater, he gets to say what he thinks.

And  so I was eviscerated, excoriated, any number of names, and basically told I did not understand the First Amendment of the Constitution of these here United States. The following was my absolute favorite response:

ma'am, you proudly display an apartheid genocidal state's flag on your pfp [sic], so my expectations for your reading comprehension are low going in. But I'm a fighter so I'm gonna give it the old college try.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. It means freedom from prosecution. That means the cops can't arrest you, you can't be thrown in jail, your voting rights won't be stripped away etc. It means the GOVERNMENT can't use our tax dollars to punish you over your opinion, however shitty.

Oh and #freePalestine

(Just in case you forgot what the real issue is.)

If the writer was correct in that free speech only means freedom from prosecution, I'm gonna guess he never read the First Amendment or the Constitution, and that perhaps he's the one with the reading comprehension issue.

For clarity's sake, here's the Amendment as it appears in said Constitution:

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.

Mebbe I missed the part about consequences. Nowhere does it or I mention freedom from consequences for shooting one's mouth off with incredibly misogynistic comments, but that wasn't what my comment was about. I merely said he was speaking to an audience of like-minded people and could say whatever the hell he wants. He did nothing wrong. (Did I neglect to mention that Tavia and Grace Hunt, the wife and daughter of team owner Clark Hunt, seem to agree with what he said, so I'm guessing firing his ass is not happening anytime soon. 

Just like Feckless Loser can lie like a rug, spew toads and worms each time he opens his mouth, and can advocate for the overturning of an election because he has the right of free speech no matter how anyone feels about the bullshit that flows like Niagara Falls. Not even gag orders seem to stem the flow. 

Now, hold on to those thoughts for a moment as we turn our attention to the end of the semester and the end of the Tentifada.

Institutions of higher learning (?) are capitulating to the demands of the mob. Below is taken from today's edition THE FREE PRESS For Free People. Scroll down...it's worth the trip...to the section called → Campus capitulation:

The latest to strike a very one-sided bargain with students is Harvard. In exchange for the protesters going home, the college has announced it will consider adopting boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) measures against Israel, setting up a Palestinian Studies Center, and not taking any action against 80 protesters... 

Harvard is only the latest elite school to promise to consider BDS measures. Colleges to have made that concession include:

Princeton, which will also consider ​new academic affiliations with Palestinian scholars, students, and institutions, and a new Palestinian studies course.

Northwestern, which has also committed to build a house for Muslim student activities and to fundraise for scholarships for Palestinian undergraduates.

Brown University, which agreed to vote on implementing BDS.

Rutgers, which agreed to accept at least 10 displaced Gazan students and hire additional professors who specialize in Palestinian and Middle Eastern studies.

Johns Hopkins, which will grant amnesty to all student protesters.

University of California, Berkeley, which agreed to ensure that their academic partnerships don’t exhibit anti-Palestinian discrimination, which protesters say is a “pathway to boycott of Israeli university programs.”

University of California, Riverside, which has committed to discontinue business school study programs in Israel. It also promised a “review of Sabra Hummus.”

I love the part about Sabra Hummus. For the record: the company was started by Zohar Norman and Yehuda Pearl in 1986 in Astoria, Queens, and is now headquartered in White Plains, New York. In 2005, Israeli food manufacturer Strauss bought the company, and is now co-owned by PepsiCo and the Strauss Group. Who are they gonna go after next? Microsoft? They recently built a huge campus in Herzliya. Maybe the protesters should all uninstall OFFICE from their computers. 

But that's not the part that scares me. I wanna know more about Palestinian studies. Will they be teaching actual history or only 20th century history? Will they teach about the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries in the mid 20th century, or only about the Palestinians who sought refuge in Lebanon and Jordan where they were denied basic refugee rights? Are they going to support Hamas as viable a government in a new country or are they going to teach how to support an emerging economy? 

I actually think Palestinian studies is not the worst idea on the planet. Those who are rallying to their support need to understand the roots of the struggle and how a solution that ultimately gives equal footing to two states is probably the best solution. 

That said, an article in The Palestine Chronicle: From the River to the Sea and the Alleged Proposed Genocide – Why We Urgently Need De-Zionisation by a fellow named David Miller addressing the dismantling of Israel is terrifying for what it ultimately states:

But, in truth,  the slogan absolutely does mean the ending of Israel as a state form, the dismantling of the “Jewish state”. The reason is that it is impossible for Palestinians to live as “free and equal” citizens without the creation of a new state in which such desires can actually be accommodated.

But does the “destruction” or “dismantling” of the “State of Israel” mean genocide of the Jews? It should be obvious that it does not and it’s dishonest to pretend otherwise. It means the dismantling of a state form established by Zionists. Even if many people died in such a process this would not be a genocide against the Jews since there is no evidence that anyone wants to kill the Jews as Jews as opposed to wanting to end the structural oppression that the “state of Israel” brings with it.

If you believe that last line, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. 

The world has seen what the Taliban did in Afghanistan, what Hezbollah does in Lebanon, what ISIS did in Iraq and Syria....and David Miller thinks we're gonna fall for that? Guess again, Mr. Miller. All evidence is to the contrary.  Name one Arab state where non-Muslims have full civil rights and live in peaceful equality under Sharia law. I'm not so certain one exists these days. 

Meanwhile, back to Harrison Butker....

Words said aloud or written out or published carry with them a certain amount of weight. If you speak, write, or publish words that are hurtful, be prepared to have them come back and bite you. If you espouse an unpopular point of view, position, or opinion, be prepared for the backlash; it will come. BUT do you have the right under the First Amendment to state your opinions aloud, in writing, or in print? Absolutely. You can insist an election was unfair and stolen...sure, Feckless does that daily. You can demand Jews vacate the land of Israel all you want... but it doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Harrison Butker might have gone on the record praising women who stay home instead of working, but that's his belief. He gets to cherish that all he wants. Even when he advocates for a ban on a woman's medical autonomy, he gets to have that opinion. He does not, however, have the right to force that opinion on the rest of us. That is an entirely different matter.

And he is certainly going to reap all the castigation, criticism, mockery, and assorted consequences the disagreeing public can heap on him. We're entitled to our opinions, too.

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

I booked tickets to Tel Aviv this morning.

It's a good time to plan a trip.

Just sayin'.

Bonus Content - 

Here are the other three episodes I've written on the First Amendment

We, the People ~ The First Amendment

The First Amendment ~ Part Deux

The First Amendment ~ Part 3: A primer on Free Speech