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

[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.