Classical Values :: Redrawing the lines

Redrawing the lines

Back in October, Ann Coulter was roundly criticized for this statement:

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment.

Considering the controversy that her own First Amendment exercises generate, it could be argued that the above was a bit reckless, and might even constitute biting the hand that feeds her, but then, controversy sells.

What I'd like to know is whether the position of America's latest demon is all that different from that of the ACLU.

Glenn Reynolds raised the question of whether free speech is in short supply at the ACLU, noting ACLU intolerance of dissent within the organization.

Free speech does seem to be getting the proverbial heave-ho at the ACLU lately. Last week, a Philadelphia ACLU spokesperson announced a new exception to the First Amendment in the case of a sign asking people to order in English:

Mary Catherine Roper, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the signs straddle a line between free speech and discrimination.

Geno's "has a right to express its opinion, however offensive," she said. "But there are specific limitations on places of public accommodation, because they are supposed to be available to everyone."

I used to be a card carrying member of the ACLU, but I have a serious problem with their selective definition of civil liberties, and selective treatment of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (which they read to mean whatever they want it to mean). I lost patience with them over their attititude towards the Second Amendment:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

This is not neutrality to the Second Amendment, but outright hostility -- barely concealed with specious rhetorical cleverness. "Keep and bear arms" by its nature implies arms which might be carried on one's person in a normal manner. While shoulder-fired rocket launchers could theoretically be lugged down the street, in the founders' day, so could a cannon. But that was not the normal meaning of "keep and bear" then -- nor is it now.

And that "reasonable" sounding treat-guns-like-cars line. Please. It's never been a serious argument; in states which regulate guns witness the huge disparity between the issuance of gun permits and the issuance of a drivers licenses or car registrations. When was the last time anyone had a criminal background check performed to register a car? (Or any teen asked, "Uh, Dad, can I borrow the gun tonight?")

Well, now that I think about it, maybe the ACLU isn't being as "unfair" to the Second Amendment as I thought. Maybe they can have their lawyers issue a "Statement of Free Speech Neutrality" to make their position consistent with their position on guns:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of controls on hate speech and speech disseminated and published over the Internet. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of hateful speech or publicly accessible weblogs. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register such speech and blogs.

Most opponents of controls on speech concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater, issue defamatory statements, or post discriminatory signs in the workplace. Yet all of these are forms of speech.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict speech, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

You think they'll say that?

Not a chance.

At least Ann Coulter has the guts to say what she thinks. The satirist in me thinks the ACLU should hire her to work on First Amendment issues, and the political pragmatist in me thinks they should hire her to rework their gun policy position. If the ACLU could combine forces with the NRA, freedom might be salvageable.

Before dismissing this as utopian thinking, remember the entertainment factor.

It's good for business.

Even better, from 1776 on to the present day, it's been legal for individuals to own and fire muzzle-loading cannons and mortars and the like.

The normal understanding of keeping and bearing arms applied to small-arms, of course... but they still didn't ban private ownership of artillery!

(The Gun Control Act of 1928 that defines arms firing a projectile of over .50" as destructive devices unless the State decides otherwise applies only to breech-loading firearms...)

Sigivald · June 20, 2006 06:26 PM