Self-Evident Truths

[dragonlady7]

This was composed after extensive mulling over of an article I read that suggested that Americans are so polarized that they no longer recognize one another. To that I say, there never was a monolithic, homogenous American culture. There have always been at best a number of subcultures making up a whole, and theoretically we all had enough in common that we could happily enough co-exist. It is ludicrous to assume that we would all share the same values and beliefs: we don't all even speak the same dialects.

But we all, at the very least, share the same government. And, theoretically, have read the same documents that laid out the initial governance of our country. There must be common ground, in which we all still believe.

Our government was begun with the phrase "we hold these truths to be self-evident" ringing strongly in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

Therein, they outlined the "certain inalienable Rights" that all people should enjoy, and that a government should support. They believed so strongly that these rights were inalienable that they stated that if a government did not support these rights, a citizenry was within its rights to alter or abolish said government. (It was a declaration of a revolution, after all. Don't forget they were revolutionaries.)


I want to ask, in as non-partisan a manner as possible, what rights people still think are inalienable. The more legalistic language is directly from the original text of the Bill of Rights, and some is cribbed from the Declaration of Independence. Some of it is paraphrased, some of it is entirely rephrased. If you feel I have altered the meaning to the point that it is unacceptable, then say so. I came up with these out of my thought of what seemed to me to be the most obvious and important rights in the minds of our forefathers, the importance of which doesn't seem to have changed at all over time.

If you would answer "No" to any of these questions, please state why.
You may disagree with only part of a question, but again, please say why.

These are in no particular order, but are numbered so that they can be referred to later.

1. Should individuals and organizations be guaranteed freedom of speech, including freedom of the press? How far does this right extend?
   
   
   1. Should they be allowed to criticize aspects of the then-current government?
   
   
   2. Should they be allowed to criticize aspects of a then-current armed conflict?
   
   
   3. Should libel and slander remain illegal?
   
   
   4. Should "hate speech", i.e. speech serving no purpose other than to incite hate against a person or group, be illegal?


2. Should each individual citizen be free to worship his or her God in the manner he or she sees fit, without interference from or intimidation by the Government or any other body?


3. Should people still be protected from searches and seizures of their person or property without probable cause?


4. Should people accused of crimes still be given:
   
   
   1. the right to speedy and public trials,
   
   
   2. the right to confront any witnesses against them,
   
   
   3. the right to legal counsel,
   
   
   4. the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them
   
   
   5. the right not to have excessive bail placed upon them
   
   
   6. the right to be safe from cruel and unusual punishment?


5. Should people have the right to pursue their own happiness, provided that pursuit does not actively prevent another person from pursuing or enjoying his or her own happiness?

And, another important consideration:

Should we hold whichever of these rights you agree with in any kind of consideration when we occupy a foreign country? Or is that an entirely different case? (Certainly, I am not suggesting that the laws of the United States ought to apply to anyone else, and if the laws do not apply then the rights do not apply; it can't be helped.)
But should we keep these rights in mind when formulating foreign policies, or are there too many other considerations for it to be feasible?


I am approaching this from as apolitical a standpoint as I can. After all, most of these derive from the Founding Fathers, who were all firm believers in the destructive nature of factions and parties. It would do them a disservice to ascribe any of these to one party or to another. But, I may well have a bias that I have been unable to compensate for, and it is important to point it out to me.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Not to be a dork but....

It was really just George Washington and John Adams that truly disliked parties... Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton liked them......

-CP

[dragonlady7.livejournal.com]

It was Madison who wrote Federalist #10, so him too...

[(Anonymous)]

I'd say that the proviso you added to question 5, "provided that pursuit does not actively prevent another person from pursuing or enjoying his or her own happiness" needs to be tacked on to a number of the others.

For example, we all have the right to worship or not as we please, without government intervention, but only up to the point where that worship/refusal to worship gets in the way of someone else's choice.

But this is the problem that has led to what you described earlier when you said that evangelicals see secularists as denying them the right to worship. That's not what we're after (at least it's not what I'm after), and I have a hard time understanding how they see it this way. Yes, we ask that they keep it out of the public space, because when they bring it in they're trampling the rights of those minorities who would choose not to do it their way. They view this as blocking them from worshipping, and we see it as blocking them from pushing their worshipping on others. When we say it's wrong for them to legislate a time for prayer in the schools, we're saying that doing that forces it on people, but they're saying that worship is worship, and we don't have a right to stop them no matter where or when they want to do it. What they refuse to see is that we're not stopping anyone from praying any time they want. We couldn't if we wanted to, because they can pray silently to themselves without us even knowing it. We're just saying you can't make it official in any way.

Similarly, when we come out against the government funding religious activity (which of course, they're doing more and more), it's not just because we don't want religion to benefit from our tax dollars, we don't want the government to pick which religions will benefit, and nobody wants ALL religions to receive that benefit. We also want to protect religious organizations from government interference. If you're collecting money from the government, there are certain things you're going to be required to do, and it's wrong to make those requirements of religious groups, right?

So, as the folks who don't want me to smoke in public remind me of on a regular basis, my right to kill myself ends at their lungs. An evangelical's right to praise the lord ends at my soul. Leave me out of it, keep it out of my way, and they're free to praise him til the cows come home.

--qwerty

[spacellama.livejournal.com]

1 and subs 1-3: Yes. We should be able to say whatever the hell we want to. 1, sub 4: No. We should be able to say whatever we want to. People are going to take offense at things, and frankly, anything even vaguely opinionated could be construed as hate speech. Icky? Yes. Illegal? No.

2. Yep.

3. Yep.

4. Yep. Though, I think there's a provision in the law that protects underage accusers from having to face their molesters in court. I don't like special cases, but that one doesn't annoy me so much.

5. Yep. And other people should have the right to criticize that pursuit, if they wish.

6. No. First, I don't believe we should occupy another country. But if we do (and we do; argh), laws in that country should reflect the culture of that country. Not our culture. Theirs. I happen to think Democracy is best, but some other folks in the world don't. I happen to think that women should vote, but some other folks in the world don't. I don't have any control over those other folks, and I don't want any control over them.

And I didn't detect any bias in this post. Sounded very textbooky. ;)

[(Anonymous)]

I have to disagree with spacellama on 1 sub 4 (maybe because a distant cousin of mine was murdered in a hate crime before there was such a thing in the legal sense, and the two guys who bashed his head in with a hammer got probation).

Hate speech isn't the same thing as a hate crime. It's not the same as bashing in a head. But if its only purpose is in getting people to take hammer to head, then free speech doesn't enter into it. It's like screaming something out in order to create panic, such as the old fire in the theatre bit. The problem is proving both intent and that you've got an audience that'll take you at your word. That is, if I publish a paper suggesting we kill somebody, that's one thing. If I have a following that's actually going to do it, then my saying it is not unlike my use of a weapon against that somebody.

Q.

[spacellama.livejournal.com]

You position makes sense, and your personal experience with hatred sounds horrific. Probation?! How? What kind of judge gives a murderer probation?

In principle, I'm against most laws. I don't think they add much to our society and serve mostly to enrich lawyers and make politicians feel good about themselves. Some laws have a lot of backing, and I don't grumble over them too much (like the laws making hate speech, drugs, and not wearing seatbelts illegal), but I still think they're unnecessary. It's like legislating people to be nice to each other.

[(Anonymous)]

My cousin, like a lot of my family, was an orthodox jew. He took a youth group from his temple to a Rangers game at the garden and on the way out they were shouted at and followed by a couple of guys. I don't know what they shouted, but it was racist, and I'm told it was threatening. So my cousin got the kids into the van, pulled out a pair of nunchuks, and told the guys to get lost. That's when they bashed his skull in, so the judge gave them a bit of latitude and accepted their plea of self defense.

Some laws serve the same purpose as the Bill of Rights. They're intended to protect minorities and the weak from the tyranny of the majority. That's how I view hate speech/hate crime legislation, but as I said, hate speech is a lot tougher to prove intent with. In the case of a hate crime, a murder may be just a murder, but I personally think there's more to punish when you murder a person because of who they are or what they believe.

this is from kat

[(Anonymous)]

Well, as a reporter, let me take on the freedom of the press questions.
I believe that, as currently written and interpreted by the courts, the restrictions on libel are a reasonable infringment on the freedom of the press. For those who may not have to know everything about libel simply to get through the average workday, the rules are as follows:
To prove that you have been libeled, you must prove
1. that you have experienced harm -- not embarrassment, but harm to your job, your finances, your physical being, etc. Somehting that can be pointed at, like "I lost my job." Things like, "People laughed at me on the streets" or "My boss looked at me funny" don't apply.
2. that the statement in question was wrong, and provably wrong. For example, if I print that Joe Smo is a child molester, and he really is, it's never libel no matter how much harm it brings to Mr. Smo. But if I say he's a jerk, it's also not libel even if he's not a jerk, because "jerk" cannot be proven to be true or false. And no, for these issues it is not acceptable to bring in character witnesses who say you're not a jerk.
Here's where it gets better. If the person being libeled in a public official (and that's defined carefully, but essentially means anyone who by their actions or position has thrust themselves into the issue -- like a neighbor who protests the issue in the street, or the mayor who is making a decision abotu the issue), when it's not libel EVEN IF IT'S WRONG unless it can be proven that the person making the statement had "actual malice."
In other words, they'd have to prove that I wanted to make them look bad, and they must prove that through statements I made beforehand (like "I'm going to get him"). If we had a reason to believe wat we were writing was true, we're safe.

While I recognize that this standard makes it almost impossible for a public official to prove libel, I think it's reasonable because it protects the press in cases where we were wrong but thought we were right. That protection has to be there, otherwise we'd almost never be able to write the really important things that have to be written, like Watergate -- because although the reporters had lots of proof, from people in the know and a paper trail and so on, without Nixon actually admitting it they would've been in danger of libel. But since Nixon was a public official, they weren't.

Other than that restriction, I think the freedom of the press should be left completely alone. The press provides an essential role and I strongly believe democracy would not last without an independent, unfettered press. That means we do also get stuck with tabloids and the fox news station, but so be it. Even with the bill of rights, the government manages to restrict the press all the time, most recently with the "embedded" reporters in Iraq. In previous wars, reporters could go wherever they wanted -- now they're attached to a unit that keeps a close eye on them and doesn't allow them to go in many places. Do I think the prison abuse would have occurred if reporters had had unlimited access? Well, it sure would've been found out sooner, that's for sure.