No Right Is Absolute

One of the things I try and teach the Scouts in my Citizenship in the Nation class is that there is no such thing as an absolute right.  The classic example is that you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (unless of course there is one).  In that spirit, I think we should reexamine all of our rights in the Bill of Rights as they exist in the Constitution, and determine what our new standard should be, in light of the provisions of the new Connecticut Assault Weapons ban... or as it is actually called, "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Protection and Children's Safety"

Let's start with the easy one:.  Background checks.  Clearly some forms of speech can incite violence, or cause irreparable harm to people, especially children.  We've seen what can happen when a child is bullied, or cyber-bullied.  We've written laws about it, none of which seem to have helped.  So it's clear that to solve this problem, we should require a simple, instant background check before anyone is allowed to speak.  To those that would say this requirement is too onerous, I would ask why children should be allowed to be bullied?

Let's move on.  Finger printing.  In Connecticut, you have to submit to finger printing in order to qualify for a pistol permit.  This is an excellent idea that we can apply to other rights in the Constitution.  For instance, the right to not incriminate yourself is a pesky one.  Did you know that if you are charged with a crime in the US, the prosecution cannot call you to testify at your trial?  Outrageous!  However, we can combat this partially by requiring that all persons in the US be finger printed.  This way, we won't only have the finger prints on file of those that have previously committed crimes, or those that sought a Pistol Permit (or those that wanted to teach, drive a bus, or any number of other jobs).  We will have EVERYONE's fingerprints.  The need for this is supported by the astounding fact that 100% of first time criminal offenders started out as people who had never committed a crime!  To those that would say that finger printing everyone would be too onerous, I would ask if one child's life is saved, isn't that reason enough?

Assault Assemblies.  We have no interest in stopping law abiding people from peaceably assembling.  However, we know that some assemblies lead to speakers inciting violence, protesters defecating in the streets, people squatting in parks in unsanitary conditions that keep other people from enjoying the parks for months at a time, rapes and assaults, and sometimes even rioting. For reference, Google "Occupy."  Because of the risks, it would be prudent to ban certain assemblies altogether.  It is difficult, but not impossible to define an "Assault Assembly."  However, nothing will stop us from doing so.  Probably the best way to do it is to take a cue from the IRS and simply target any assembly organized by a group with "Tea Party" or "Constitution" in it's name.  And once these Assault Assemblies have been defined, we'll be able to make it a felony to participate in one.  Further, we can limit the damage that Assault Assemblies have by banning "high capacity assemblies."  Any assembly of more than 10 people would now be a felony to participate in.  To those that say these bans and limits are too onerous, I would ask how many people you really need in an assembly in order to make your point?

Finally, we should probably start issuing Press Licenses.  It is clear that today's media is in a sorry state of affairs.  They are constantly getting stories wrong, slanting the news, and deceiving people into believing in a particular point of view.  For reference Google either "MSNBC" or "FOX NEWS."  And still they are getting their lunch eaten by a bunch of hack bloggers, and more people now read Facebook than a newspaper.  And to top it off, they can't make ends meet!  Clearly something must be done.  My proposal would be for the government to issue "Press Licenses."  Without a press license, you would not be able to blog, or post an opinion or news story on Facebook.  You'd HAVE to get your news from a government approved source.  This will allow us to remove harmful media outlets, as well as every Tom, Dick, or Moose from posting opinion online.  In fact, the government could do what it did with Marijuana licenses - never issue one.  Then we could all get our news from government press releases.  Everything will be more accurate, and you won't have to think anymore.  To those who would say that such licenses would be too onerous (or dangerous), I would ask that if you have to have a government issued license to drive a car, why can't one be required to report the news?  I mean, more people are killed in auto accidents every year than from all the gun violence combined. 

Welcome to my brave new world.  Be well.