What if the First Amendment was handled like the Second?

(subtitled I Have a Nightmare)


The Founding Fathers never intended people to be able to communicate with the speed and wide-ranging impact we have today.  In their day, the most dangerous free-speech tool around was the printing press.  It was dirty, hard work to print pamphlets, which then had to be distributed by a human being. 

Today, it is possible for one person, typing in comfort, to reach literally millions of people. 

If the Founders had known the power that one person could have with a few simple motions of fingers on a keyboard, they would have built more government control into the Constitution.

A 13-year-old schoolgirl killed herself after the mother of a former friend pretended to be someone else, gained the girl's confidence, and then turned the conversation hostile. 

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&page=1

There is the classic example from Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919) where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. used the example: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

There is the example of of the George Zimmerman case where NBC news falsely edited a 911 tape to make it appear that Mr. Zimmerman was a racist, when in fact he was answering a direct question from the 911 operator.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbc-news-admits-error-in-editing-george-zimmermans-911-call-apologizes/

In 2004, the Boston Globe published fake porn pics that claimed to depict U.S. Soldiers raping Iraqi women.  "Other news sources exposed the photos as fakes a week before the Boston Globe published them, and critics alleged that a simple Google search would've shown as much."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/10-biggest-journalism-sca_n_893357.html#slide=305522

Also in 2004, Dan Rather alleged that George W Bush "failed to fulfill his service to the National Guard, relying on documents that were revealed to be forged."

Jayson Blair - "27 year old Jayson Blair was an emerging force at the New York Times in 2003 when it was discovered that he had plagiarized and fabricated facts in at least 36 articles for the paper.

"A 1992 Dateline NBC segment showed a General Motors truck exploding after a low-speed crash with another car.  GM later sued the network when the explosion was revealed to have been staged with remote-controlled devices, and NBC News President Michael Gartner was forced to resign."

And, according to "the largest accuracy study of U.S. papers" published in 2007, "just over 59 percent of articles contained some type of error, according to sources."



Therefore, I propose some sensible limits on our First Amendment freedoms to protect society, move our nation forward and, most importantly, protect our children.



There should be restrictions on who can speak and publish (communicate).  There are some people who should just never be allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights.  They are dangerous people and cannot be trusted with that level of power.  The mentally ill and those who have committed felonies fall into this category.  Just imagine the number of children a felon could influence if allowed access to communication tools! 

There should be a database created that tracks every communication.  Each communication should have a unique number so that, as communication flows, it can be tracked. 

All forms of mass communication (such as Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail) should be reserved for government officials, the "rightful authorities", and perhaps a select few people (such as publishers and printers and newspapers) who go through the rigorous process to obtain a Federal Speech License (FSL).  The FSL process will be long, costly, and revokable at any time.  The average citizen cannot be trusted with the ability to mass communicate.  Think about the carnage that could ensue if that were allowed.

Communication should be limited to 10 sentences.  We are well aware that there are many forms of communication available now that allow 30 sentences, or even 100 sentences.  If common people were allowed that much ability to communicate all at one time, without even switching communication devices, just think of the impact.

People should not be allowed to purchase communication tools too frequently.  Why does someone need to purchase communication tools 2-3 times in a week?  No one needs to.  Therefore, people should only be able to purchase communication tools once a week.  If they want to purchase communication tools again the following week, then they can. 

There should be a "cooling off period" between the time someone wants to communicate and when the communication actually happens.  People can be hot heads and dangerous and should not be allowed to communicate when angry. 

Background checks should be performed before anyone is allowed to communicate.  Sure, there will be a few false-positives and, because of that, some people will have to wait to communicate until the discrepancy can be cleared up, but it is a small burden to protect the children and keep our nation safe.

While communication forms (such as books and newspapers) are legal to carry openly in public, it is frowned upon and may cause others to be uncomfortable.  If you wish to take communication out in public secretly, special training will be required.  Cost will be $100-$150 for the training class, you will be registered with the government, have a background check performed on you, and be required to present your government issued license to law enforcement immediately upon contact with them.  Failure to warn police officers immediately upon contact may result in your loss of your concealed communication carry permit.

All forms of communication, when sold, must be sold with a communications lock.  This will ensure that the communication does not open accidentally and that children, if left home alone and curious, will not come upon a form of communication, read it, and be injured by it.

We will encourage doctors to find out from child patients how many forms of communication parents have in the home and record that.  A parent with too many forms of communication in the home may be viewed as a danger to the children or the community.

There are some places where communication just doesn't belong.  These will be referred to as "communication free zones".  This would be places such as movie theaters, bars, and other places where large groups of people gather.  Imagine the mayhem if some communication was used in a large gathering of people!  How many people could be impacted by a single person's communication?  What would the horrific result be?  It would be a disaster!

All paper will be heavily taxed.  While paper is not communication itself, it is still an accessory to communication and, therefore, should be taxed to help government pay for all of the care and clean up that needs to happen when someone, somehow manages to pull off a "mass communication" in spite of the good and sensible laws we have put in place. 

There will also be limits placed upon the number of pieces of paper someone can buy during a specified period.



Back to reality:

The facts at the beginning of this communication on the impact of poor communication (or downright lying) are all true.  These all happened.

The thoughts presented after that are based on current or past gun regulation, either at the federal or state level. 

Clearly, we believe the regulations suggested to control communication are ridiculous.  But, do we believe the pen is mightier than the sword?  If so, shouldn't we regulate communication MORE than the weapons?

We cannot allow our inalienable rights to be violated by a power-hungry government.



Afterthought:

You know what's scary?  As I read this, I think of my brief experience in China.  Many of these things are actually this way in China. 

When we think of Communist China we think of draconian crackdowns, where dissent is squashed, religion is highly regulated, and family sizes are controlled.  We think of oppression.  We think of a lone man standing in front of a column of tanks.

When you do a Google Image search for Tienanmen Square, you see the image repeated of the man standing in front of a column of tanks.  I can tell you for reports and from personal experience, that when you do the same search in China, you don't see a single result of a man standing in front of a column of tanks.  You see pictures of a nicely decorated square, pretty flowers and flags.  Facebook also cannot be accessed over there, and the "Great Firewall of China" still restricts communication of the Chinese people.  Google G-mail has been repeatedly hacked by China so that China can monitor/spy on the communication of its dissidents. 


Call to action:

Get involved.  Do something that reaffirms the accurate beliefs of the Founding Fathers. 

Contact your representatives.
Join the NRA.
Vote when able for those who value freedom.
Use your first amendment right and communicate with others.
Get involved in a local gun club.
Whatever you do, just don't be silent.

Aloha.