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.
FIRST AMENDMENT
It has been announced that tonight in Phoenix, Arizona an event will be held that will involve a drawing of Mohammed cartoons. This so called “contest” will be held next to a mosque. The idea of having such an event, an obviously provocation, has brought forth another debate on what is covered in the freedom of speech part of the First Amendment. None other than Chris Cuomo, a CNN analyst, attorney, and brother of New York Governor, tweeted “hate speech is excluded from protection. Don’t say you love the constitution, read it”. It is another example of how the intent of this amendment is continued to be changed for political purposes.
Our forefathers were very clear. They desired to protect us from a government that would impose its definition of morality and or a religion. To achieve this purpose, many times clarified by the Supreme Court, there has to be a total absence of subjectivity because what is repulsive and or hateful to some, including a majority of the people, might not be for others. Any exception to this concept opens the door for an imposition, censorship, and loss of freedom. Exceptions are only made when there is ample evidence of a direct correlation to loss of life as the frequent cited quote from a Supreme Court Judgment of “shouting fire in a theater”. Jon Ritzheimer, the known atheist and event organizer, gives many rationalizations for his action, but the most benign description of him is that he is a “total jerk”. Fortunately the Mosque leader Usama Shami clearly understands James Madison, and stated when asking his followers to ignore the provocation “Everybody has a right to be a bigot. Everybody has a right to be a racist. Everybody has a right to be an idiot”.
Fernando J Milanes MD
