Free Speech Isn't, and Shouldn't Be

First Amendment to the 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."

Pretty simple, right?

Yet hundreds of court judgements, similar amounts of Supreme Court reviews and Opinion (why is it an Opinion, not a Final Order?) affirming, modifying, declaring, opining, and other descriptive terms point towards the continuing need for affirmation of Free Speech as a bedrock component of Democracy, at least as practiced here in the U.S.

Now comes the recent case involving the woman who masqueraded as a boy, terrorizing a young girl, deliberately intending to harm the girl through SPEECH, with, some folks claim, direct responsibility for the young girl's suicide. The woman was found guilty, and may face jail time; some feel that she should get life for what she did, and caused. The way the woman was found out was through inspection of the girl's computer and Chat activity, and tracking down the woman.

In Maryland, a lawsuit for damages is pending, waiting for a decision on whether an Anonymous web site poster may be identified for purposes of legal action for damages, originating from claimed defamation. Other cases either resolved in determining identification, or still pending, attempt to argue that Anonymous speech is inherent in the right of Free Speech, constitutionally protected.

I don't think so.

The Right of Free Speech, in my opinion, carries the concurrent right and responsibility to "claim your speech" as well.

Why? Because the Founding Fathers contemplated the absolute right to petition the government, in whatever forum, at the time town center speeches and postings, "cry outs" in meetings, articles and letters in newspapers, and literally every way possible to let a voice be heard, and protected in the process, even encouraged. The Founding Fathers occasioned the founding of United States as a result of Free Speech activities, considering that our founding was precipitate upon the ability to create speech in the form of a government expressing self-determination, with, for instance, the Vote being a form of speech.

In the Maryland case, anonymous Internet posters claimed that plaintiff's business, an eating establishment, was dirty, unsanitary, polluted the area, and more. The web host, a newspaper publisher, defends the poster's anonymity as a Free Speech right. Plaintiff claims that without knowing the Anonymous poster, truth, motive, intent are open. Plaintiff's harm may be substantial; poster's claims untruthful, defamation may have occurred.

While the court decision is Pending, my hope is that the poster's identity will be revealed. I feel that Anonymous posting offers the opportunity for free speech to be used in "evil pursuit," at least as far as potential harm to people is concerned. The American system of justice must protect Speech of all types, be it whistle blower evidencing government, corporate or Citizen misdeed., or Citizens expressing Opinion of politicians, institution, or commerce.

The need for and right to Anonymity stops at the point where untruth, defamation, or other damage occurs, giving civil right to those harmed to pursue civil damages, as prescribed by law. Whether in actuality untruth is claimed, harm is caused, monetary damages are justified, al all to resolved in a Civil Court, and rightly so.

"Juries can most easily determine the fairness of a thing, and the rightful outcome."

In essence, we must take responsibility for our speech, and be protected in the Right to present speech. Our responsibility extends to accepting the consequences for our actions, when necessary.

"There is little Truth in perception or in subjectivity; Truth reveals itself in the examination of the facts."

"If you must speak, declare publicly, be known for your portrayal, be confident in your righteousness. Let those who disagree debate publicly as well, with vigor and similar righteousness. Let the public decide the right of it all."

The Constitution provides for the protection of Speech, and provides for the responsibility of Government to vigorously, energetically, and constantly be alert for the need to protect Speech, both it's Right, and Responsibilities.

It's one thing to opine that a politician reminds you of a Groundhog, only sticking his head up to see what the weather is like; it's another to suggest Anonymously that he collects bribes for constructing the burrow. In the first instance satirical humor is offered, in the second, a claim of criminal conduct requires the identification of the poster if the politician claims damages, AND if the poster is the only Proof of the claim.


Similarly, it's one thing to Anonymously claim that a MySpace Friend really isn't, diddles your boys and girls, has HIV, or other claims which are false, and defamatory. The Accused must be able to confront the Accuser, and our system of justice demands an avenue of redress; I suggest must even assist in the pursuit of redress, such responsibility inherent in providing a Guaranteed right of Free Speech.
The Constitution provides for the right of the Accused to confront their Accuser. The government, at the instance of prosecution, even discovery, acquires the absolute responsibility to protect the accuser.

In this country let no man be afraid to stake his claim to opportunity, nor be afraid of declaring the same; let no auspice of government interfere, but protect equally.

Thompson prescription "bad medicine" for Social Security

Fred Thompson's debate performance may illuminate his views, but the light wasn't flattering. Initially, I like ex-Senator Thompson; his personality, his viewpoint, hopefully his integrity.
In particular, however, his ideas on dealing with the Social Security "problem" may give pause to seniors.
His solution? Rein in benefits, which he feels will so overburden the system so as to cause an earlier blowup than had been thought. His way? Index the benefit's annual increases to inflation, rather than wages, which is OK by me, so long as his inflation index is the "senior index," meaning the disproportionate amount seniors spend for health care and medicines, the fastest growing component of their "living index."
To just consider overall inflation, but not the senior index type of inflation is to ignore the rapidly rising components of health care for seniors, retirees and the disabled, which is 4-5 times the overall rate of inflation. Standard inflation? 2-3 %. Health care inflation? 8-10%
In effect, health care inflation reduces seniors, retirees and the disabled purchasing power and their standard of living, given the disparity of the benefits annual adjustments and health care costs. Thompson's solution would make it worse.
Maybe a solution in the opposite direction would sell better to those avid-voting seniors. Offer to index Social Security benefits with a new "Seniors Living Index" which would take into account the horrendous and unjustified, ever growing, health care inflation, which averages 4-5 times or more the standard index of inflation. While that might drive the system to the insolvent stage sooner, it might also overcome the health industry's demonstrated ability to lobby, obfusate, and avoid the kind of scrutiny that might mitigate their ever-increasing ability to charge more and more... for less and less.
Someone once said, "Democracy is the worst system of government...except for all the others."
The American Health system is the very worst, except for all the other choices.
That doesn't mean we can't do better.