#JeSuisCharlie is About Freedom of Speech, Not Its Content

A collection of "I Am  Charlie" sayings in various languages (CNN)

A few days out from the terror attack at Charlie Hebdo in response to that magazine's satirical cartoons, we've seen the emergence of the Hot Take express based on the social media movement around #JeSuisCharlie. Translated from French, the hashtag means "I Am Charlie" and was posted as a sign of solidarity with both the victims of the attack and freedom of expression.

That didn't seem to sit right with some people. Rather than seeing the movement for what it is - a gesture of support for the right to publish whatever one wants - some saw it as support of the content of Charlie Hebdo. Simply put, that's a shortsighted view of those who came out in support of Charlie Hebdo after their staff was brutally murdered for publishing uncouth cartoons.

Fundamentalist Florida Preacher Declares 9/11 "International Burn a Qur'an Day"

I don't have much to say about this story, except that it makes me really ashamed as an American. Our country was founded on the premises of religious tolerance, freedom, and moral authority. The controversy in Florida contradicts everything we are supposed to be as a country. The first amendment gives any fundamentalist Christian the right to burn a Qur'an, and any fundamentalist Muslim the right to burn a bible. But the level of ignorance, thoughtlessness, and pure hatred required to carry out such an act is startling, and abhorrent.

Disaster in Massachusetts and a Supreme Court Decision that Disgraces Democracy

Two pieces of calamitous news in two days. Both pretty much impossible to swallow, but both realities moving forward.

The Massachusetts Senate Election

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters elected the little-known Scott Brown to assume the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Kennedy spent decades fighting tooth and nail for health care reform, and now reform is severely threatened by Brown's impending inauguration. He has already vowed to obstruct the Democrats from passing a bill (nothing new for a Republican), and now Democrats are starting to back off any ambition they once had for making the bill strong and thorough. Massachusetts voters, who had been enamored of Ted Kennedy for decades, voted to betray his dying wish. I am not saying that the successor to his seat should have espoused his every view; I am saying that whatever values Ted Kennedy held that Massachusetts citizens ostensibly held in such high esteem for so long, they instantaneously turned their backs on.

There are innumerable factors that likely lifted Brown to victory, most of which have been discussed at length. Coakley ran an awful campaign. Voters were still disillusioned by the nation's employment and housing crises. The election was taken for granted by Democrats for too long. But whatever the reason for the shocking defeat, there are now 41 Republicans in the Senate, opening the possibility of interminable filibusters and continued obstruction until November, when Republicans will point out to Americans that Democrats have accomplished next to nothing, despite holding the Presidency and both Houses of Congress by sizable majorities.

The House climate bill can be completely scrapped. (Why do we even have a House, by the way? Sure, they're much more representative of our country than the Senate, but who needs representatives, when they don't seem to have a say in anything?) The relatively progressive House health care bill will likely give way entirely to the Senate health care bill so that at least something is passed (if there's no health care bill passed at all this year, Democrats can probably say goodbye to legislative chamber majorities come November). Who knows if there will be a jobs bill (even though that's what people are most concerned about right now). Financial regulations will pass, but likely in a weak bill that will maintain much of the status quo for the very sharks who helped push the world economy into a deep recession.

What exactly were Massachusetts voters voting for, then? Were they trying to send a message that they're mad? Because like it or not, Scott Brown will not get back at Wall Street. Scott Brown will not help create short-term jobs (his solution is to cut taxes). And by the way, when you're out of a job, Scott Brown certainly won't help you get health insurance. Oh, unless you're from Massachusetts, where progressive Democrats already passed legislation to ensure that for you. Ted Kennedy's dream, and life's work, which was so close to fruition, has been betrayed by his own loving constituents, solely because of his death. The irony is excruciating.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision

In other horrible elections news, today the Supreme Court ruled that the government can't ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. I've talked at length about this issue before. While I have problems with the inherent idea of democracy (see: Massachusetts voters voting against their own interests and the interests of their country), I still acknowledge that it is the only form of government that reflects the ideals of human freedom, justice, and equality. It has its flaws, of course, and must be periodically improved so that these core tenets are not betrayed. Today, they were betrayed.

The four conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court and one alleged (but woefully misguided) moderate have further opened the election process to unprecedented levels of cash injections from big businesses, arguing that they are defending the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Let me first say that money is not speech, and conflating those two concepts is nefariously deceptive. But we have to remember here that the Constitution has been bent, twisted, and adulterated incessantly over the past 200+ years, to behoove whomever was "interpreting" its words. In this case, conservative judges who maintain Republican allegiances and were all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled against a bipartisan law that was designed to make elections fair and unbiased, untainted by the influx of money from self-interested groups corporations.

What is democracy now? Does the prefix demo- not mean "people"? What the majority of the Court failed to acknowledge was the underlying foundation of our democratic republic: the right of the people to choose their leaders, and the right for any person to have a chance to become one of those leaders, assuming they can compel the electorate to afford them enough votes. Now corporations will hold undue influence in all federal elections, the wealthiest of them having the biggest say in which politicians will be elected (think: Walmarts who exploit employees, Exxon Mobils and Southern Companies who unabashedly contribute to climate change, Pfizers and Aetnas who exploit the sick for massive profits, and Citigroups who get away with inciting economic turmoil and run away with unfathomable bonuses).

Whatever politicians who are still around that you thought were truly serving the interests of their constituents--that average "Joe the Plummer" that Republicans just love evoking--will soon be a vestige of a previous era of American politics. Don't get me wrong: Democrats are often just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to being beholden to special interests. And elected progressive Democrats who want to reform our election system to make it fair and democratic will soon be few and far between. Unbridled capitalism has commandeered our democracy. Our election system, the basis of American idealism, is truly tarnished in an irrevocable way (unless today's atrocious ruling is one day revoked).

It's been a really bad week for America.

Images: Scott Brown (New York Times), spineless Democrats (photobucket.com), Supreme Court Justices (Zimbio.com), Guy with sign (scu.edu)

Barrett's Email Debated: Seriously?

I find it unbelievable that there is even a debate surrounding whether Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett should be fired after his racist email calling Henry Louis Gates, Jr. a jungle monkey. Some people have come out to say that it's a free speech issue and that Barrett should not be fired. Others, including Boston Mayor Menino, want Barrett off the force immediately.

Here's what a lot of people do not understand about freedom of speech: its principles allow you to say whatever you want in this great country, but what it does not do is give you immunity from punishment. Under the guise of free speech, I can walk up to my boss and call him a grade A asshole. Should I not be fired for that because I was practicing my right to free speech, or does the fact that I have shown my inability to remain professional trump that (in the public or private sector)? Take a guess which route my boss would take (and he would be justified).

The fact of the matter is that certain people cannot do certain jobs. It is never justified for a racist to be a police officer (and sending an email in which you call a black person a jungle monkey to a newspaper earns you a racist label). This country's criminal justice system is based on the equality of the law (at least since 1868). It also is based on the rights of the accused. To have a police officer who clearly thinks less of one group of people because of their race and who thinks that suspects have no rights makes no sense; he would not be able to properly do his job. When you cannot properly do your job you do not deserve that job.

Barrett should be fired and have to pay the taxpayers back for his suspension. There is no room for him in any police department or any job that involves him dealing with a diverse clientele. Imagine him back on his beat and having to deal with anyone; Barrett would garner no respect because of his actions. He also has probably lost the respect of his colleagues, who turned him in. Not only was his email racist, it was an extremely stupid thing to do and if it is any indication of his judgment, he does not belong on our streets with a gun, never mind with any authority. Peace.

Photo - Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett (NY Daily News)

Murderers Deny Mass Murder

Yesterday, a white supremacist murdered a security guard at the Holocaust museum here in DC. A notebook found in his car read "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."

Free speech is a tenet of our democracy, and shouldn't be compromised. But too often speech is used to distort and manipulate until the truth is all but lost. James von Brunn had no doubt been lied to himself, until he believed all the hateful, dishonest things he had been told. Adolf Hitler once said,

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.

And he was right. That is partly how he was able to convince an entire nation of relatively intelligent people that they must follow him in his path of intolerance, hatred, and mass murder.

To me, the most frightening thing is that there are so many people who genuinely believe that the Holocaust did not occur. If enough people repeat a lie over and over again, others will start to assume that there are simply two sides to the story, and it becomes a debate rather than a truth. White supremacists and world leaders alike have been denying the Holocaust for years, and many even denied it while it was taking place.

Now, as the decade comes to a close, the last of the world's Holocaust survivors are slowly passing away. What happens a generation from now when they are all gone and can no longer tell their stories? Two generations from now when their children are gone and cannot relay their stories to others? Will the "truth debate" become more inflamed until history itself is entirely compromised? Will 1984 manifest itself, not because of an authoritarian regime, but because of an exceptionally vocal group of psychopaths?

There is so much about psychology and morality and humanity that the horrors that took place in the Holocaust can teach us. But when people undermine the very existence of some of the most atrocious actions mankind has ever undertaken, it effectively serves to devolve us as a species.

Free speech is important to preserve, but we have to remain vigilant of its abuses, and continue to proliferate the lessons that must be learned from the tragic realities of history.