 |
Things could use a shot in the arm here, so I'm reposting blog stuff again:
Let me preface my remarks by saying this: James von Brunn is a vile racist murdering son of a b***h who should get his turn on the chair for what he did. Fifty James von Brunn’s aren’t worth one Stephen Johns, we are worse off without Johns, and will little miss Brunn when his small shriveled 88 year old heart finally gives out on him. That said, I already see the precursor for another tragedy developing. . . the tragedy of society’s double standards. Brunn left a note explaining that the motivation of his actions centers around this lovely passage right here: “The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America’s money. Jews control the mass media. The 1st Amendment is abrogated –henceforth.” Unfortunately this vile little man is getting tacked on to his very well deserved murder charge a hate crimes charge. I say unfortunately not because I don’t want Brunn to face justice to the hilt (I believe I prefaced this calling for his execution), but because hate crimes are not only a crude government instrument of thought control, they are also a sad vehicle for society’s double standards.
At the same time that this miserable excuse of a man was committing these heinous crimes, we were also being treated to a rant no less odious from the illustrious Jeremiah Wright. Wright too echoed Brunn’s paranoia about Jews, stating “Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me,”elaborating further “They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.” Brunn’s hate speech is rightly regarded for what it is; vile, pernicious, hurtful, wrong. The problem is when it comes to Wright, the tune changes. Then we start hearing “free speech,” and “who cares, he’s not in office.” But what Wright said is so frightfully similar to what Brunn said. It illustrates a deep dysfunction on our social conceptions of hate that Wright’s is dismissed, while Brunn’s is to be prosecuted. Either the opinions of both men are criminal, or the right to free speech should confer, like most other rights, even when you do wrong. In fact, most of our rights exist to protect us when we are in the gears of justice. We have rights against unreasonable search and seizure, rights to protect us from bearing witness against ourselves, rights to face our accusers, rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and rights to due process. These are not suspended when we have committed crimes. It makes little sense, then, that one’s right to free speech and editorial freedom would cease to extend to the times when we break laws. After all, even a thief can sue you if he slips and falls on your sidewalk while robbing you. We are left with one of two notions, either Brunn’s right to speech precludes criminality of his opinions (we can still fry him for murder, and you bet I’d be the man to throw the switch), or the speech itself is fundamentally criminal, in which case we should prosecute Wright.
|
 |
Reply
