Letters

Letters 08-31-2015

Inalienable Rights This is a response to the “No More State Theatre” in your August 24th edition. I think I will not be the only response to this pathetic and narrow-minded letter that seems rather out of place in the northern Michigan that I know. To think we will not be getting your 25 cents for the movie you refused to see, but more importantly we will be without your “two cents” on your thoughts of a marriage at the State Theatre...

Enthusiastically Democratic Since I was one of the approximately 160 people present at when Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 in Charlevoix, I was surprised to read in a letter to Northern Express that there was a “rather muted” response to Debbie’s announcement that she has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president...

Not Hurting I surely think the State Theatre will survive not having the homophobic presence of Colleen Smith and her family attend any matinees. I think “Ms.” Smith might also want to make sure that any medical personnel, bank staff, grocery store staff, waiters and/or waitress, etc. are not homosexual before accepting any service or product from them...

Stay Home I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the letter of the extremely homophobic, “disgusted” writer. She now refuses to patronize the State Theatre because she evidently feels that its confines have been poisoned by the gay wedding ceremony held there...

Keep Away In response to Colleen Smith of Cadillac who refused to bring her family to the State Theatre because there was a gay wedding there: Keep your 25 cents and your family out of Traverse City...

Celebrating Moore And A Theatre I was 10 years old when I had the privilege to see my first film at the State Theatre. I will never forget that experience. The screen was almost the size of my bedroom I shared with my older sister. The bursting sounds made me believe I was part of the film...

Outdated Thinking This letter is in response to Colleen Smith. She made public her choice to no longer go to the State Theater due to the fact that “some homosexuals” got married there. I’m not outraged by her choice; we don’t need any more hateful, self-righteous bigots in our town. She can keep her 25 cents...

Mackinac Pipeline Must Be Shut Down Crude oil flowing through Enbridge’s 60-yearold pipeline beneath the Mackinac Straits and the largest collection of fresh water on the planet should be a serious concern for every resident of the USA and Canada. Enbridge has a very “accident” prone track record...

Your Rights To Colleen, who wrote about the State Theatre: Let me thank you for sharing your views; I think most of us are well in support of the first amendment, because as you know- it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. I also wanted to thank Northern Express for not shutting down these types of letters right at the source but rather giving the community a platform for education...

No Role Model [Fascinating Person from last week’s issue] Jada quoted: “I want to be a role model for girls who are interested in being in the outdoors.” I enjoy being in the outdoors, but I don’t want to kill animals for trophy...

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Deserving the Bill of...
. . . .

Deserving the Bill of Rights

Stephen Tuttle - January 3rd, 2011
Deserving the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights has, more or less, been under attack from the
second it was ratified as the first 10 amendments to the Constitution
in 1791. Introduced by James Madison, all 10 were created as a way to
protect the rights of individuals and serve as a brake against the
government.
It’s taken a real beating for the last half century or so.
The Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unreasonable searches
and seizures, was stomped on pretty good at the beginning of the
modern war on drugs. Courts gave police unprecedented powers to
rummage through all sorts of our possessions absent a warrant, and all
in the name of protecting society. The courts have since backed off a
bit on some of those excesses but have allowed the government to
search pretty much all of our electronic communications in the name of
the war on terrorism.
Our e-mails and phone calls can be routinely trapped, analyzed by
computers and sent along their way, and it can all be done without
permission or warrants. The courts have decided there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy when we’re communicating in the
ether and, anyway, we’ve decided the government can do pretty much
anything if they call it part of the war on terrorism.
The Fourth Amendment also shrinks a little more every day in airports
across the country. In fact, the pat-downs we now endure if we don’t
want to be scanned would require probable cause or a warrant if a
police officer wanted to conduct such a search out on the street.
The Fifth Amendment, and its clause that prevents the government from
taking our property without proving it’s for public use and without
just compensation, got creamed by the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of
New London in 2005. Taking private property under eminent domain laws
had previously been reserved for schools, roads, water treatment
plants and other construction that served the general public.
In Kelo, the court held the city of New London, Connecticut, could
condemn private property for the benefit of a private developer
because the subsequent redevelopment would generate more tax revenues
and jobs than the residential neighborhood it was replacing and that
would serve the public good.
The NRA would have us believe the Second Amendment has also been under
perpetual attack. States rights advocates believe the 10th Amendment
has been ignored for decades. Our 5th Amendment rights against
self-incrimination were just dealt a blow by the Supreme Court when it
ruled a suspect must affirmatively invoke the right to remain silent.
Every amendment has its champions and they all believe they are under
attack.
There’s little question, however, that our freedom of speech has been
skating on paper thin ice for a very long time. It started with John
Adam’s onerous Sedition Act of 1798 (repealed in 1801), and another
hit in 1918 with another Sedition Act (repealed in 1920) and has been
buffeted ever since.
There always seems to be someone out there who wants to stop us from
saying something or revealing something they don’t like.
Which brings us right up to WikiLeaks and its creepy founder, Julian
Assange. Wiki-Leaks has famously released a series of documents some
would rather they had not. The first gave us an honest look at the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the second wave included hundreds of
thousands of cables from diplomats essentially gossiping and whining
about other diplomats. The Obama Administration wants to silence
Assange and shut down his web site. Others would like him to be
arrested but haven’t found any laws that suit their purposes just yet.
Assange, a former journalist and computer hacker from Australia, sees
his WikiLeaks site as a kind of clearinghouse for whistle blowers and
those interested in uncovering wrongdoing by various governments and
corporations. There’s no evidence he’s paying people for information
nor doing anything to induce anyone to commit crimes to obtain the
documents being exposed. And there’s no evidence he’s getting rich
doing it.
Assange received Amnesty International’s Media Award in 2009 and was
the Reader’s Choice for Time Magazine’s Person of the Year for 2010.
He’s also wanted by Swedish authorities on a sexual assault charge
(he denies it), was recently arrested in London, and is awaiting
extradition to Sweden.
There is no denying that WikiLeaks has served a useful purpose. They
gave us our first look at internal documents from the Church of
Scientology, shed some daylight on the procedures being used on
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, uncovered government-sponsored murders in
Kenya and toxic dumping, including nuclear waste, in and off the coast
of Africa.
However, Assange’s rampant paranoia, legal troubles and his obvious
dislike of the United States make him a ripe target for those wishing
to silence him. Of course, they are doing it in the name of “national
security.” This, despite the fact that he has broken no laws and no
one has yet demonstrated how anything on WikiLeaks has compromised
national security.
Plenty of people have been embarrassed by the leaks, but so what? It
is in our best interests to know what our government and corporate
institutions are doing. Legally providing that information,
uncomfortable though it may be, is in the best traditions of our First
Amendment freedoms.
The real danger here is not Julian Assange but our ongoing willingness
to abandon, one after another, our rights guaranteed in the
Constitution in the name of “security.” This time it’s the bedrock of
the First Amendment that’s on the line.
Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “Those who would give up
essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.”
It was true in 1775. One could argue we’re even less deserving now.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close