Speaking of Flag Burning Deja-vu

There's some serious Deja-vu in the air this week, hitting some harder than others (looking at you Matt Walsh). I'm of course talking about the uproar over Trump's EO on Flag Burning this week (while also wondering why this has generated almost none), and with those reactions in mind, I went to read the EO in question, and was puzzled to find not only less than Trump had floated nearly 10 years ago ("...perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"...") for flag burning (which I posted on at the time in Burning our Freedom of Speech in action, reproduced below) and which I still stand behind, but I was puzzled to find far less than the reactions claimed was there.

A friend of mine had the same reaction, and both of us are wondering where people are getting their positions and panic from?

Take a look for yourself, if you haven't already (hopefully you haven't been reacting to it, before reading it for yourself?), it's barely a page long: PROSECUTING BURNING OF THE AMERICAN FLAG.

What I see in the EO, is a couple of paragraphs of preferences, opinion, and historical anecdotes, some reasonable expectations for respectful behavior, and he then essentially tacks "American Flag" onto references to existing laws and codes regarding:

"...determines that an instance of American Flag desecration may violate an applicable State or local law, such as open burning restrictions, disorderly conduct laws, or destruction of property laws..."

, and:

"...To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws..."[emphasis mine]

, etc., and goes on to specify impermissible conduct along those same lines for legal aliens (nothing that illegal aliens do is permissible) ... and that's about it.

To be clear, I'm not 'for' the EO, but I'm not seeing what's panic worthy and unconstitutional about it either. I'm also not seeing the '1 year in jail' that's being bandied about and denounced. Do you? For those of you who are outraged... could you maybe show me what you're outraged over? Please.

To be even more clear, as I explain in the post below, I do not agree with the 'Johnson v Texas' decision (links below) where SCOTUS ruled that flag burning was 'protected speech'; not because it bravely protects 'difficult' free speech, but because it actually erodes it, which I go into in the post below:

"...So again, my question isn't centered around the flag, or any other symbol, but upon the notion that the inclusion of the flag can somehow transform an overtly intimidating or destructive action, into protected speech, without benefit of actual speech or even an artistic representation of it. What I'm questioning, is, whether expanding the range of things protected under the freedom of speech so as to encompass such things as the violent destruction of symbols, strengthens our liberty, or corrupts and weakens the concept of it, and jeopardizes our ability to sustain and enjoy that very liberty that we're all supposedly so concerned in protecting...."

I'll direct your attention to "Three Washington State Teens Face Ten Years In Prison For Vandalizing Pride Mural", for reference.

Also, unlike the ever volatile Matt Walsh, who was A-Ok with flag burning 6 years ago, and is exceedingly opposed to it now (and excuses that by saying "I changed my mind"), my position remains the same as it was a decade ago, because the principles involved haven't changed.

I don't think I need to add much more than that to the matter, so without further ado, lets go back to the future (as a regard for first principles typically enables us to do):


Monday, December 12, 2016
Burning our Freedom of Speech in action
In light of all the uproar last week over Trump's questioning of whether burning the flag should perhaps be protected as 'freedom of speech', or not, I'll exercise my freedom of speech by questioning some common assumptions about what freedom of speech is, and isn't.

To get the easy part out of the way, here's Trump's tweet that started the latest round of 'discussion':

"Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

, now, even allowing for his 'perhaps', the notion of losing your citizenship over burning the American Flag, or being imprisoned for a year, is, IMHO, silly, and further sensationalizes a subject that is already too saturated with it. But, that being said, what we associate with the 'flag burning issue' is something that needs a lot more consideration than the two existing poles of 'Burn it!' and 'Revere it!', tend to permit, especially since the burning of the flag is the least important aspect of it, and more often than not, it is a distraction from what the real issue is: our Freedom of Speech... and the rest of the 1st Amendment.

As much as I disrespect those who disrespect our flag, it's not the burning of the flag that I have an issue with, from a legal standpoint at any rate. What I do have an issue with, is what has become one of those default 'givens' that we hear and have heard over and over, from all sides, for so long, and so often, that we no longer get around to seriously questioning it, and that 'given' is the idea that the action of destroying property in as inflammatory a means as possible, can be considered 'speech' - let alone constitutionally protected speech. For decades I've heard that position being asserted (from the Left, and now even from the Right), and while I've heard objections to it being ridiculed, I've rarely heard the assertion really being questioned, and it seems like maybe it's about time to begin doing just that.

Here's the text of the 1st Amdt:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Simply reading the text of it isn't enough though, you need some understanding of what the idea is, and why it was considered important to prevent the Govt from infringing upon it, before you go attributing your own preferred meaning to it. If it's been a few years since you've done anything of the sort, here are a few links worth reading, beginning with the ideas and debates that went into writing it, up to the case most often referred to in flag burning discussions, Texas v. Johnson:

• This links to the text of the 1st Amdt as well as a number of links to arguments, debates, cases, comments, speeches (especially Montesquieu's, John Marshall's , relating to the original debates over the Freedom of Speech (Madison introducing his draft to congress) and James Kent's commentaries, the right to peaceably assemble and to address your grievances to your government(related links), as well as regards Religion, that went into writing the 1st Amdt, and its implementation
• , and from the last of those, which is especially worth reading (all the way through) Justice Joseph Story's comments on what it was that the 1st Amendment secured the freedom of,,
• , and finally the text of the Texas v. Johnson case, and key cases it references and builds upon,

  • U.S. v. O'Brien,
  • W.V. State Board of Education v. Barnette,
  • Boos v. Barry
  • and Stromberg v.CA

In reading these cases and comments, and thinking about what is meant by 'Freedom of Speech', it seems to me that most of the judgments attributing the actual burning of flags (or draft cards, etc) to being a form of speech protected under 'freedom of speech', or to 'symbolic speech', are not only inappropriate, but they cheapen, degrade, and dangerously blur that concept of speech which the framers of the amendment were seeking to preserve and defend. The treatment of the action of burning objects as that were equivalent to speech, waters down and weakens our understanding of what Freedom of Speech is and was meant to be, which I think jeopardizes our hold on this fundamental right far more than even an authoritarian government ever could.

Examples of just that are easy to find in our recent news headlines, with masses of people
disregarding the rights of others as they press on with the intention to 'exercise their own rights', by obstructing the free movement of others, and battering or burning their persons, cars, stores, and neighborhoods in riotous actions which they then turn around and righteously justify as being 'peaceful protests' with comments such as,

'It's a small price to pay for exercising our 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech!'

Is it really?

Since we've accepted the idea that the destruction of property, when wrapped up in the flag, magically becomes constitutionally protected speech, how coincidental can such rioting in the streets be?

I suppose that I should probably now get a few things clear about what I'm not saying or questioning, or leaving out of my consideration - I'm not in any way calling into question the need for that foundational liberty of Freedom of Speech to be vigorously defended. The freedom of speech, the ability to express our ideas - even and especially offensive ones - is a vital component of any society that hopes to have, and preserve, the liberty of its people.

Neither am I questioning the importance of defending the right to political or artistic speech, whether impromptu speech, or as expressed in writing, spoken or performed on stage or on screen, or as in more symbolic forms, such as painting or sculpture, etc. Such measures which illustrate and convey ideas, despite how foul they might seem to me, they are, and should be, protected under the freedom of speech.

Nor am I in any way questioning the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition government for redress - or for that matter Religious Liberty, on the contrary, and to borrow a phrase, 'They must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately', and the reason I'm questioning this, is to strengthens these vital rights, by thinking them through.

One thing that I'm definitely not doing though, is questioning whether those actions which destroy the property of another, or doing so on someones property without their permission, actually is - that is not freedom of speech, it's simply vandalism, as well as an assault upon the political anchor of all of our liberties, property. Such pure vandalism and destruction of property warrants punishment in its own right, before any questions or rationalizations of 'speech' come into consideration. Destructive actions which violate the rights of others, are not conveying speech (BTW, when violent and destructive actions are committed for political purposes, doesn't that flirt with being categorized as terrorism?).

A clear distinction needs to be made between that of peaceably assembling, petitioning for redress of grievances, giving voice to your dissatisfaction with government, and the action of destroying another's property, and it is of vital importance that the difference be clear in the minds of We The People. That our Supreme Court has not been especially careful in in that area, IMHO, borders upon negligence, and has borne much poisonous fruit.

Special Effects are not Speech
So again, my question isn't centered around the flag, or any other symbol, but upon the notion that the inclusion of the flag can somehow transform an overtly intimidating or destructive action, into protected speech, without benefit of actual speech or even an artistic representation of it. What I'm questioning, is, whether expanding the range of things protected under the freedom of speech so as to encompass such things as the violent destruction of symbols, strengthens our liberty, or corrupts and weakens the concept of it, and jeopardizes our ability to sustain and enjoy that very liberty that we're all supposedly so concerned in protecting.

For instance, let's remove those things I consider objectionable from the action and see what we wind up with. Let's say a person bought and paid for the flag themselves, and either went to their own property, or secured permission to another's property for that purpose, and without any credible effort to incite violence, with no chanting or protests or rude behavior of any kind involved, they simply, calmly, and without saying a word, set the flag on fire.

Would that be an expression of 'freedom of speech'?

If you said 'yes', can you explain to me why?

What I'm wondering is, what is it that you think those flames are saying to you? Do they speak to you of objections? Protests? Displeasure? Hatred? And if so, with what? Foreign policy? Racism? The particular cotton and rayon blend that the flag was printed upon? A dislike of Americans or just for American policy? Explain to me how you know that those sly whispering flames aren't simply expressing a dislike of the IRS... or of Hollywood, or of any of those other 'reasons' I just mentioned?

If you just tried to put your feeling into speech, you probably found that the specific action of burning the flag is unable to communicate anything of relative certainty, unless it is accompanied by either hostile or reverent actions. And yet even the simplest speech, even dryly and robotically repeating the very chants cited in Texas v. Johnson 's "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you", repeating that without any emotion or inflection, or even silently printing that chant out in block letters and without the accompaniment of any visual effects at all, even then, those words clearly communicate an unambiguous dissatisfaction with America. Don't they?

Why does the former communicate no clear meaning on its own, while the later is clear under any circumstances?

The answer is that only one of them is actually a form of speech, and the other is nothing more than a theatrical prop for that speech, a visual special effect, a theatrical contrivance to emphasize an idea, but it is not an idea itself, and so as it contains no communicable idea on its own, it is devoid of the attributes of speech, which is what that portion of the 1st Amendment is there to protect, preserve and safeguard: our ability to entertain and meaningfully communicate ideas in art, discussion and debate.

And to go a step further, while people assume that burning the flag 'expresses displeasure', why are we so quick to flatly assume that it is expressing their dislike of the flag, or even of America? Because it's on fire? Since the point of arguing that such 'symbolic action' is protected speech, can you rightfully ignore that the custom of those who revere the flag, is to burn any flag that's been soiled, as an expression of their respect for the flag? Or to break it down to the ridiculous, do flaming birthday candles express displeasure of the candles, cake or who you're presenting them to? Does lighting off fireworks express our displeasure with America? Were the Vikings or American Indians expressing their displeasure for the dead, when they burn their bodies on a funeral pyre?

If the act of lighting the flag on fire, in and of itself, is 'speech', then isn't it a very strange and mute kind of speech that doesn't seem able to communicate any one particular kind of thing at all? It is confused or even mute, because burning the flag is an emphatic action, but it is not in itself, speech, or even a substitute for it. The 1st Amendment protects speech, not each persons indistinct and pre-verbal feelings of angst.

It is ridiculous to pretend that burning a symbol to ashes somehow gives off 'speech' - how, in the smoke? By way of some sort of chemical reaction? It is untenable. Those who run up and burn the flag are very likely doing it because they despise something about America, but in justifying such actions as speech, by stretching the concept of what constitutes speech to the point of setting a flag on fire, can that really 'speak' anything meaningful to us at all? To say that it can, seems ridiculous to me.

With the above in mind, take a look at the summary of the SCOTUS case of Texas v. Johnson :

"JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
After publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. This case presents the question whether his conviction is consistent with the First Amendment. We hold that it is not.
I
While the Republican National Convention was taking place in Dallas in 1984, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration dubbed the "Republican War Chest Tour." As explained in literature distributed by the demonstrators and in speeches made by them, the purpose of this event was to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and of certain Dallas-based corporations. The demonstrators marched through the Dallas streets, chanting political slogans and stopping at several corporate locations to stage "die-ins" intended to dramatize the consequences of nuclear war. On several occasions they spray-painted the walls of buildings and overturned potted plants, but Johnson himself took no part in such activities. He did, however, accept an American flag handed to him by a fellow protestor who had taken it from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.

The demonstration ended in front of Dallas City Hall, where Johnson unfurled the American flag, doused it with kerosene, and set it on fire. While the flag burned, the protestors chanted: "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.""

This portion of it, I'm in full agreement with, that the govt has no case or place in opposing:

"...While the Republican National Convention was taking place in Dallas in 1984, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration dubbed the "Republican War Chest Tour." As explained in literature distributed by the demonstrators and in speeches made by them, the purpose of this event was to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and of certain Dallas-based corporations. The demonstrators marched through the Dallas streets, chanting political slogans and stopping at several corporate locations to stage "die-ins" intended to dramatize the consequences of nuclear war...." and "...the protestors chanted: "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you."

If we assume the best case scenario about the manner in which protesters might have marched through the streets, that much warrants the protections of the 1st Amendment's to peaceably assemble, and somewhat less clearly, it can make a credible claim to the 1st Amendment's protection to petition their govt with grievances, and of course the Freedom of Speech.

But in this portion, however, I do not, and I do not see how anyone can make a credible and legitimate case for claiming to be consistent with a respect for Individual Rights under the Rule of Law, as it is nothing more than violent and destructive actions to the public peace, and to private property, which constitute an assault upon the rights of others:

"...On several occasions they spray-painted the walls of buildings and overturned potted plants, but Johnson himself took no part in such activities. He did, however, accept an American flag handed to him by a fellow protestor who had taken it from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.

The demonstration ended in front of Dallas City Hall, where Johnson unfurled the American flag, doused it with kerosene, and set it on fire. ..."

That is neither practicing nor respecting the right of the people to peaceably assemble, nor to petition their Government for a redress of grievances, nor does it intelligibly convey the reasons for doing so, which is what speech is, and is for - which is a point what Montesquieu was getting at in the link above, where he said,

"Words do not constitute an overt act; they remain only in idea."

, and conflating them with action, is dangerous to the defense of both. This passage,"While the flag burned," should be separated from '...the protestors chanted: "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you." by more than a comma; the later portion is the actual speech with which our liberty depends upon us to protect, while the former, 'while it burned' is nothing more than a special effect to highlight that speech which was spoken - and again, special effects are not themselves speech.

Burning the flag is an action, not speech, it's just you burning stuff while stomping your feet, and the more we move towards seeing them as one, the closer we come to putting our freedom of speech in real jeopardy. If you make emotional actions equivalent to speech, you not only encourage the notion that attacks upon persons can be permitted as 'expressing your freedom of speech', but you will eventually find, when things go too far, that actual speech will be curtailed, along with such violence, when people have finally had enough of it. You cannot conflate the two, without eventually putting both in great peril.

If you want to express your displeasure with America in a way that can claim the protections of our freedom of speech, and do so in a manner that doesn't impinge upon the those other measures protected under the 1st Amendment, then you need to be using words, or clear substitutes or symbols for them. And if you accompany those words with the action of a flaming flag, be aware that those flames only accent the speech, they are not speech itself. Burning the Flag, the symbol of America, is an action, not speech. It is not even properly symbolic, it's but the active and meaningless destruction of a meaningful symbol. At best such protesters are using destructive or intimidating actions to express FEELINGS! and LOUD NOISES!, but nothing that can be understood as speech.

What can't be understood or communicated, can't be said to be speech - feelings, yes, but not speech, and our 1st Amendment, thank God, does not protect your feelings. Only modern colleges attempt to do that.

Symbols speak for themselves - destroying them silences that speech, while expressing only your preference for destructive actions, over thoughtful speech
The flag is, of course, a symbol, and a particularly rich one, deep with meaning in its Stars and Stripes, symbolizing our defining principles of liberty under the Rule of Law established to limit the fearsome power of government, to the purpose of upholding and defending the lives, individual rights and property of its citizens, as citizens, who are regarded as equals before their laws.

We've already seen how poorly the action of burning a flag puts anything intelligible into speech, but does it do any better symbolically? What symbolic speech does the flag burner convey by destroying the symbol of our nation (or any other symbol, for that matter)? I'm not asking why they burn it, or for an evaluation of it, only for you to tell me what it says - can you?

Are they attempting to symbolically express their dislike for those particular men who fell short in living up to what our flag symbolizes? Or is it their dislike for the worthy ideals that some or many particular people fell short in defending? Are they symbolically criticizing those high ideals, or those who failed to live up to them? Does allowing any ambiguity in that distinction make any damn sense at all? On such an important question, the flag burners are, by their own actions, unfit to express their pre-conceptual angst, seemingly mute before it, unable to do anything but give vent to their emotions by destroying a symbol of elevated concepts and values which they apparently can't begin to understand or put into words themselves. In a very real sense (though perhaps not legally actionable), burning the flag, is itself an assault upon the spirit of the 1st Amendment, and by means of something other than what it stands in defense of.

Symbols are able to convey deep concepts and the highest thoughts of ordered speech, and it takes more than destroying those symbols to elevate such destruction to an equivalent level of thoughtful speech. Destroying the symbol of such thought does not itself create or convey thought, it only destroys it, symbolically, or actually. To take it to the extreme, in murdering Martin Luther King as the symbol of the Civil Rights movement, James Earl Ray did not express any ideas worthy of protecting, he did not communicate one iota of speech, point of arguments or words of eloquence, he merely murdered a greater man than he was. MLK is such a powerful symbol today, because he was supremely capable of eloquently communicating high ideas and arguments, through words, and through moving and meaningful symbols of liberty - and the 1st Amendment afforded him the protection of the law to do that, no matter how the Bull Connor's in Govt at the time desired to revoke his freedom to put those ideas into speech.

The destruction of symbols, living or inanimate, do not constitute speech, actual or symbolic, they only seek to put an end to such speech. Destructive actions such as that convey no more speech than a savages' incoherent howl.

By setting such a symbol as the American Flag on fire, people at best identify themselves as being incapable of freely expressing even a single criticism in words that others can understand - and they show no respect for the need to; they display themselves for all to see as better suited to the savage barbarity which the accepting of such actions as speech is most likely to engender and spread.

Burning the flag is not, and cannot be, speech - it is only a destructive action, nothing more. In certain contexts it may deserve to be protected; the 9th amdt affords enough unenumerated rights and powers to individuals, to secure and preserve legitimate means of protesting, and I'm sure that a clever lawyer could, and probably should, be be able to cite a defense for people who wish to add such theatrical emphasis to their speeches - if they can do so without violating the rights of their fellow citizens - but it still does not fall under the banner of the Freedom of Speech.

The question we should be asking ourselves now is not what Trump tweeted or how to punish anything other than arson, but questioning what it is that accepting such actions as speech does to our own understanding of what speech is. And we should question what must surely follow when such barbaric actions are elevated to the level of civilized speech, and unwisely defended on the same grounds, as if they were the same thing - such equivocations can't help but be dangerous to all of our liberty.

From out of the ashes
So if I'm correct in saying that neither vandalism nor violence, can be considered to be 'freedom of speech', what do you suppose it is that we've invited into our popular consciousness, by saying that such actions are the equivalent of speech? Doesn't making the claim that such actions are protected forms of speech, say that you have a constitutionally protected right to commit vandalism and violence? That seems as ridiculous as saying that 'peaceful protests' can involve forcibly prevent other people's freedom of movement in going about their lives, destroying public and private property, and rioting in the street.

I'm not attempting to elevate the flag to the status of a protected object (but aren't the flag burners actually attempting to surreptitiously do just that?), or to make burning it a taboo - if you want to burn the flag, buy one, take it to where you have the right to burn it, and burn it, gather around the flames and chant over it, broadcast it, stream it, do it however you'd like; flame away to your hearts content. I would not dream of forbidding that to you, and in fact I worry that attempting to extend government power to the preservation of such worthy symbols, does put the liberty it symbolizes in jeopardy.

In his dissent to the Johnson v. Texas case, Justice Rehnquist went into a long review of the origin and symbolism of the flag which I think is relevant only in so far as to establish that burning it is an intentionally provocative action, meant to provoke a reaction or to be suffered in silence, by those witnessing it,

"...In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), a unanimous Court said: "Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or `fighting' words - those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Id., at 571-572...."[emphasis mine]

, and he notes what I partly agree with, and partly find fault with:

"... The result of the Texas statute is obviously to deny one in Johnson's frame of mind one of many means of "symbolic speech." Far from being a case of "one picture being worth a thousand words," flag burning is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others. Only five years ago we said in City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 812 (1984), that "the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places." The Texas statute deprived Johnson of only one rather inarticulate symbolic form of protest - a form of protest that was profoundly offensive to many - and left him with a full panoply of other symbols and every conceivable form of verbal expression to express his deep disapproval of national policy. Thus, in no way can it be said that Texas is punishing him because his hearers - or any other group of people - were profoundly opposed to the message that he sought to convey. Such opposition is no proper basis for restricting speech or expression under the First Amendment. It was Johnson's use of this particular symbol, and not the idea that he sought to convey by it or by his many other expressions, for which he was punished."

What I agree with, is

"... flag burning is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others..."

That's spot on. Which leads to what I disagree with him on, and what I believe undercuts his case, that such actions can then be considered to be "symbolic speech" while at the same time, not be speech. It can be an action, a special effect, a provocation, but it is not symbolic or a symbol, it is only the destruction of a symbol, and should not, cannot be, considered to as speech - symbolic or otherwise. And while I thoroughly understand and agree that the Flag is properly loaded with symbolism, and that it plays a vital role in the hearts and minds of Americans, I do not believe that the govt can play a role in preserving or protecting it.

Govt can act on the secondary results of the burning of the flag, in that recognizing such actions as Johnson's were intentionally provocative ones, and were designed to arouse spiteful emotions, and therefore was an act of incitement, which is actionable, in terms of preserving the peace. But I do not think it can have a role in actively protecting our flag as a symbol of America, from Americans. Not because it isn't a vital symbol, and not because such a thing would be improper for govt to do, but because taking on such a role, for such a purpose, cannot adequately be defined and delimited, without giving the government such power as that role would inevitably turn towards preventing and silencing actual speech, in the name of the symbol of that liberty. Despite Rehnquist's criticism of an earlier court's comment, that the SCOTUS took,

'... its role as a Platonic guardian admonishing those responsible to public opinion as if they were truant schoolchildren has no similar place in our system of government...'

that is pretty much where a prudent evaluation of the matter must end up at.

While I sympathize with those who'd like to pass a law protecting the American Flag, the power that such a law would give to government would be impossible to contain, and would soon be used to destroy the liberties which that flag stands for. We cannot protect the flag through laws, but only by better understanding what it stands for, and by reasoning with, or speaking out against, those who'd put both flag and the understanding of it in peril.

Wrap Liberty up in the Rule of Law, not the Flag
To wrap it up, what I'm saying is that the idea that destroying a symbol can somehow transform provocative actions into speech, without benefit of actual speech, or even an artistic representation of it, is a danger to actual speech.

You could of course actually paint, speak, stage or film yourself destroying revered and symbolic objects, even including in your 'art' the burning of property, even dramatically punching a judge in the face, and get away with calling that artistic expression - in a theatrical setting. But the 'fourth wall' is a very real one, and if you step beyond it into 'real life' and physically walk up to someone and destroy their property or punch them in the face, you're not going to get away with calling that either political, artistic, or symbolic speech. It is only violence, and nothing more, and engaging in it carries you across the Fourth Wall from the theater of art, and into a Hobbesian theater of war of all against all; a warring on speech, on property, and so on Individual Rights and the Rule of Law.

What those who think of themselves as defenders of 'free speech' are doing, in redefining what speech is, is extremely dangerous. When a definition is stretched to the point of including that which it is clearly not, along with what is so essential to what it actually is, that is not strengthening the concept which such actions are hiding behind; you are not broadening the identity of speech by doing so, you are corrupting, weakening, and slowly destroying it where it really matters, as questions of 'what the meaning of 'is' is' operate like termites in our common understanding. By accepting broad and watered down redefinitions of what speech is, we've opened the door to tyrannical abuses of our core rights and liberties, by those who seek to dominate us through such actions, wrapped up in the flag as if they actually were instances of speech. The consequence of our having made such errors, are brutally visible in the popularity of the belief that riotous 'peaceful protests' should be tolerated because they have '1st amendment protections!', as one enthusiast described protesters marching through traffic, terrifying the car's occupants, damaging their vehicles, and smashing store windows as they passed.

A glorious symbol that is best protected in the hearts and minds of We The People

How free can Freedom of Speech be, when protecting the Freedom of Speech of some, entails infringing on, or ending the ability of others, to peacefully discuss  or act under such ideas? In our swallowing that position as being a legitimate one, I think we've swallowed a poison pill.

What seems apparent to me, is that by allowing what is not speech, to be protected as if it were speech, we are jeopardizing our Freedom of Speech by allowing the indiscriminate exercise of physical force and violence to mask itself as being speech, and in so doing makes the freedom of speech - and our liberty - that much less secure.

If anyone has an argument to show me where I'm going wrong here, I'd dearly appreciate your speaking up.

Our Lack of Causes for Mass Shootings - The deadly effects of treating effects as causes pt.2 of 2

There are more causes than we can count for why so many people today have so little interest in living lives worth living or showing respect for human life - theirs or others. While we can't say what causes any one person to choose to murder as many of their fellows as they can manage, we can identify some causes for why living respectful and worthwhile lives was not central to the lives they chose to live out in our midst, and IMHO identifying why so many lack that is more meaningful to know than the endless and meaningless details of these shooters lives that are obsessed over in our tragically repeating news cycle.

I pointed out in the previous post that causation in human affairs was once understood to have a deeper more pyramidal structure than the cartoonishly flattened out 'cause & effect' (see gun->shoot people, hate brown skin-> shoot all skins, be bullied by someone-> shoot everyone, etc.,) accepted today, and pointed out how at least one central issue that is lacking in each of these shooters, is also lacking in those who shriek the loudest afterwards about disarming their fellows ability to defend themselves against such attacks - shooters and shriekers alike lack a regard for that fundamental ideal that America was formed from and upon: a respect for individual rights. This absence is 'present' in all levels of our society today, and should be even more disturbing to us than these mass shootings which are its most extreme effects, and the fact that most who lack that ideal have not yet chosen violence (though a great many do enjoy talking about it), should be cold comfort indeed - we as a society are imperiled not by the things surrounding our lives, but by what is lacking within our lives.

This lack of regard for an ideal that is so fundamental to America is not only concerning, but puzzling, as all societies have a means for understanding, elevating, spreading, and acting on their highest ideals in daily life - why does ours now (for clearly we once had it) lack that? Previously we looked at the effects which the lack of that ideal can have on a individual thoughts and actions, this post will look at what is lacking in our means of transmitting that ideal into the American people. Again, by not getting distracted by the many meaningless effects, and concentrating instead upon what is meaningfully lacking, we can better see the layers of the pyramid of causes from top to bottom - material, formal, efficient and final - in our means of conveying our most fundamental ideals.

A Material Cause
The ideal of individual rights is vital to the mind of any who is deliberately an American, but despite their good intentions it is unlikely to be sustained alone in a person for long, without the support of that person's habits, actions and aspirations, which is what makes a person's character the Material Cause (“that out of which” something is done) of their behavior.

Of course one essential character trait that's present in those who are not inclined to slaughter their fellows, is that they value and admire living a good life, and doing so requires them to have developed a habit of making choices that are respectful of what is real and true and good, which in turn requires a person to have developed a habit and method of thinking - IOW a reasonable method of asking questions that lead to a deeper understanding of what is true, while identifying and rejecting what is false - and a sufficient wealth of supporting knowledge, understanding and inspiration to draw upon, for successfully carrying their choices towards, safely through, and past, the turbulent passions of the moment.

Having and sustaining a good character is not such an easy thing to do, and an important point to acknowledge about virtuous habits, is that they're an extremely unnatural thing for a human being to seek, develop, and sustain. Even with the benefit of a good character, it is not easy to choose to do what is best and right, over what is easy and tempting, but it's damn near impossible to do so when caught up in the midst of your passions, with no habits or anchoring truths whatsoever, to help you

Burning our Freedom of Speech in action

In light of all the uproar last week over Trump's questioning of whether burning the flag should perhaps be protected as 'freedom of speech', or not, I'll exercise my freedom of speech by questioning some common assumptions about what freedom of speech is, and isn't.

To get the easy part out of the way, here's Trump's tweet that started the latest round of 'discussion':

"Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

, now, even allowing for his 'perhaps', the notion of losing your citizenship over burning the American Flag, or being imprisoned for a year, is, IMHO, silly, and further sensationalizes a subject that is already too saturated with it. But, that being said, what we associate with the 'flag burning issue' is something that needs a lot more consideration than the two existing poles of 'Burn it!' and 'Revere it!', tend to permit, especially since the burning of the flag is the least important aspect of it, and more often than not, it is a distraction from what the real issue is: our Freedom of Speech... and the rest of the 1st Amendment.

As much as I disrespect those who disrespect our flag, it's not the burning of the flag that I have an issue with, from a legal standpoint at any rate. What I do have an issue with, is what has become one of those default 'givens' that we hear and have heard over and over, from all sides, for so long, and so often, that we no longer get around to seriously questioning it, and that 'given' is the idea that the action of destroying property in as inflammatory a means as possible, can be considered 'speech' - let alone constitutionally protected speech. For decades I've heard that position being asserted (from the Left, and now even from the Right), and while I've heard objections to it being ridiculed, I've rarely heard the assertion really being questioned, and it seems like maybe it's about time to begin doing just that.

Here's the text of the 1st Amdt:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Simply reading the text of it isn't enough though, you need some understanding of what the idea is, and why it was considered important to prevent the Govt from infringing upon it, before you go attributing your own preferred meaning to it. If it's been a few years since you've done anything of the sort, here are a few links worth reading, beginning with the ideas and debates that went into writing it, up to the case most often referred to in flag burning discussions, Texas v. Johnson:

• This links to the text of the 1st Amdt as well as a number of links to arguments, debates, cases, comments, speeches (especially Montesquieu's, John Marshall's , relating to the original debates over the Freedom of Speech (Madison introducing his draft to congress) and James Kent's commentaries, the right to peaceably assemble and to address your grievances to your government(related links), as well as regards Religion, that went into writing the 1st Amdt, and its implementation
• , and from the last of those, which is especially worth reading (all the way through) Justice Joseph Story's comments on what it was that the 1st Amendment secured the freedom of,,
• , and finally the text of the Texas v. Johnson case, and key cases it references and builds upon,

  • U.S. v. O'Brien,
  • W.V. State Board of Education v. Barnette,
  • Boos v. Barry
  • and Stromberg v.CA

In reading these cases and comments, and thinking about what is meant by 'Freedom of Speech', it seems to me that most of the judgments attributing the actual burning of flags (or draft cards, etc) to being a form of speech protected under 'freedom of speech', or to 'symbolic speech', are not only inappropriate, but they cheapen, degrade, and dangerously blur that concept of speech which the framers of the amendment were seeking to preserve and defend. The treatment of the action of burning objects as that were equivalent to speech, waters down and weakens our understanding of what Freedom of Speech is and was meant to be, which I think jeopardizes our hold on this fundamental right far more than even an authoritarian government ever could.

Examples of just that are easy to find in our recent news headlines, with masses of people

Ferguson goes to college: What did you expect? A rant

So, the University of Missouri 'Mizzou's President, and its Chancellor have resigned due to the demands of the outraged. What do you want me to say? What more needs to be said than what #BlackLivesMatter says? What is happening in Mizzou, is nothing less than the spirit of the Ferguson riots going to college and applying the same persuasion of force ('cause... why would you go to college to learn to form a persuasive argument, instead of using force?) towards deciding further social and political issues by demands issued with still more threats of force.

What did you expect? 

Were you, like Gov. Jay Nixon, surprised that pulling back the police resulted in the town of Ferguson being burned down? If so, then what can I possibly say to you today, that will make any more sense than what you were unable to make sense of, back then? The only thing I can think of to say, is:

What did you expect? 

And of course it's not just Mizzou,  but all around the nation - in Yale a sociology professor is surrounding by truly hysterical students because of his 'failure' to speak out against Halloween costumes! While I'm sure it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy... what did you expect?

At Mizzou we've got students making a public, PUBLIC mind you, protest, who are freaking out over being photographed during their public protest, and a assistant professor of mass media - of mass media- calling for students to 'bring more muscle' to prevent their protest from being captured in the media - and another faculty member actually shoving a photographer! 

What did you expect?!

We've even got Conservatives saying excusing their behavior, with comments such as this one:

"On one hand, we as conservatives rail on about how the media is unfair and biased, but when the black students at Mizzou didn't want the "biased" media at the celebration of their victory all of a sudden we have sympathy for the media? Seriously?"

You'll never guess what college he went to.

What did you expect?

Some folks are all atwitter now because it seems that Leftist leaders no longer care about freedom of speech. Are you serious? The pro-regressive leftist never cared about 'Free Speech'. Actual concern for freedom of speech would require an acknowledgment and understanding and concern for Individual Rights as derived from the realities of human nature, laws designed to uphold them and all that entails. No pro-regressive leftist has ever, or will ever, acknowledge (except in the most vacuous bromides), understand, endorse or defend any of that. They never cared for freedom of speech, what they cared about was having an up-armored verbal sniper position from which to attack their opponents (those who acknowledged, understood and showed concern for Individual Rights) in the schools, media and govt administrations. Having now gotten significant numbers of 'Boots on the ground' in all of those institutions, they now, logically, want to ensure that those safe positions are not used against them, and there should be absolutely zero surprise that they'll viciously shoot down any who attempt to stand up, occupy or in any manner, turn those snipers nest (as they view them) against their own positions. 

What did you expect?

And large numbers of those same 'Conservatives', having only a passing interest or sympathy with principles in general (mostly consisting of little more than reciting the taglines of traditionalist's marketing materials) will inadvertently lend their assistance to them, even chuckling over the professors or media who are experiencing difficulties at the hands of their monstrous creations. Why? Because most of them swallowed some form of that same Mizzou mindlessness, through the K-12 schools, topped off with 4-6 years of daily drilling in those same college classrooms, and testing throughout on those same anti-conceptual, anti-principled, highly pragmatic, teachings.

What did you expect?

You're not saying anything. Tell you what, I'll tell you what to expect: When a person has positions he has simply accepted without thought, without reasoning, without knowing how or whether or not their ideas are rooted in reality (without which no real reasoning can take place), without ever even having attempted to connect their ideas to reality, students, who are taught, not to ask what is True, but instead to ask 'What's the right answer?', then have no means available for defending those positions they've accepted as 'the right answer', other than by making further assertions, evasions, expressions of outrage and ultimately the threat of violence or actual violence itself.  

What did you expect? What possible alternative could you expect them to have?

When a person does not understand how their ideas were developed or how those ideas and positions relate to what is real and true, then those positions they are given to choose (Hah!) from, will be evaluated not on the basis of their truth, but upon the feelings they evoke in them, and those will be highly influenced by what is popular with those they identify with - fellows, celebrities, 'leaders' - and once those positions are accepted by them, they will doggedly cling to those positions, without reasons (and certainly without considering opposing reasons),  without understanding and without anything resembling a reasonable attitude.

What did you expect?

Having been drilled for 12 - 18 years in accepting answers rather than learning to reason their way to them, they cannot help but exhibit their professors ideal of a Stimulus/Response creature, and having sunk to that level, then anything smacking of the higher human conceptions of Reason, Truth, Reality, are transformed into Trigger words... 'Free Speech' for instance... well and good for approved positions, but opposing ideas are strictly verboten.

What did you expect?

One last question, especially for you 'education reformers' out there who've never questioned the form of education that those who've created this horror have 'educated' us all with, once upon a time there did actually did used to be an alternative form of education (the last gasps of which can be seen here), one that was developed across two thousand years of intellectual effort, trial and error... and if you want to know why you've never heard of it, or if you have heard of it, why you've likely only heard it, 'Scholasticism', as being derided and discredited (ever asked what discredited it? Beyond the slanderous 'how many angels can fit upon a pin' insult/attack made up by those who sought to overthrow it, I mean?), you only need to understand that it was a form of learning (which our Founder's era was taught through, BTW) based upon requiring students to ask and answer questions about what they were being taught, requiring them to explain and understand and be able to defend, from the highest to the lowest, all of their knowledge. Calmly and reasonably.

Having discarded that, what did you expect would follow?

You only need to look to Mizzou for an answer, as that is the very, very, logical result of Ferguson. 

To start with.

Sorry Charlie - Those who "Stand with Charlie!" in Paris FR, "Run from Pamela!" in Garland, TX

If you 'Stand with Charlie', are you part of the problem? I ask because those who were so quick to "Stand with Charlie!", have been even faster to run away from Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders and Garland Tx, and have even blamed them for daring to do what Charlie Hebdo did, even though her event conducted itself in a far more respectable manner than Hebdo ever did (Geller's being explicitly about freedom of speech, rather than Hebdo's explicit butt-sex).

I can see a problem there, can't you?

For instance, a local CBS news outfit was quick to carp that Muhammad Art Exhibit Organizer’s Ads Ousted From Philly Buses noting that the "provocative ads" which Pamella Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) had won a court battle to have displayed, were being removed from Philadelphia buses after a month-long contract expired (as in expired, not pulled), but they were a bit slower to call the terrorists who tried to attack Pamella Geller's AFDI event, terrorists, almost passively noting that bad things happened to them while trying to get inside a building:

"Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson were killed after firing on officers outside Geller’s event Sunday. A guard was wounded. Soofi and Simpson originally attempted to get inside the building."

While the Washington Post 'reported' what the discreditable leftist hate group, Southern Poverty Law Center had to say:

"Heidi Beirich, head of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s watchdog division, told CNN on Monday that although Geller’s activities may fall within the bounds of the First Amendment, they are considered “cruel and unfair” because “she doesn’t make distinctions” between mainstream Islam and militant factions."

As did NBC

"The event was sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and attended by its president and co-founder, Pamela Geller — who is also president of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). Both are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

, NBC News also wondered,

Why cartoons?
It was not immediately clear if the gunmen were specifically targeting the event. However, the publication of cartoons of Muhammad has triggered violence in the past. Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten's publication of a series of Muhammad drawings in September 2005 led to the burning of the Danish flag and attacks on Danish embassies around the Middle East. Cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was attacked at his home in 2010 by a Somali Muslim carrying an ax and a knife.
Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo, which repeatedly published Muhammad cartoons, was attacked on Jan. 7 by armed gunmen who killed 12 people."

"Why cartoons"?!! Really? And who the hell didn't immediately know that these terrorists were specifically targeting their event?! Our media, that's who didn't. Look at this one, from the Washington Post, via MSN

"Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas
Pamela Geller, the woman behind the Texas cartoon contest attacked by two gunmen late Sunday, knew what she was doing when she staged the controversial event featuring irreverent depictions of the prophet Muhammad in Garland, Tex."

And this level of misdirection and obfuscation is coming from the same people who gushed outpourings of sentiment and outrage following the islamist's murderous assault upon the 'satirical' paper, Charlie Hebdo, the same hordes who filled not only the streets of Paris with countless supporters (minus one POTUS), but around the world as well, all stood in solidarity with "Charlie", but those same people are not only turning away from Pamela Geller's cartoonists in Texas, but demanding apologies from her, as well as accusing her of provoking the attack.

What is the charge? Cruel and unusual cartooning? The mind boggles.

Could it be that the Garland, TX event just lacked the emotionally sympathetic impact that the Paris event had? Perhaps, after all, unlike in Texas, the French police were unarmed and unable to prevent numerous people from being slaughtered before the terrorists were... so sure, a sympathetic 'Je suis Charlie', "I stand with Charlie" - was a natural response to unarmed people being unjustly attacked and murdered.

But what is not natural, is that those same people the world over, didn't let loose with a "Yippee ki yay M*F'er!" when the attempted attack upon a cartoon art show in Texas was immediately stopped on the terrorists being shot dead by an armed a 30 yr veteran Texas policeman (don't mess with Texas).

Apparently "Standing with Charlie!" means just exactly that and no more - standing with Charlie. And mayyybe under special circumstances, with Bruce. But Pamela Geller? Iraqi Christians? Jews? Nope, the response is: 'Sorry folks, we're just "Standing with Charlie!" here, just putting out some sympathy, not looking to offend anyone; you understand.'

I sure do. The problem is, as with most natural responses, there is much more that needs to be gotten, but once you do get it, you should begin to realize that mindlessly following such natural responses... can quickly put you on the wrong side of the issue.

Where to stand?
If you do bother giving the matter more consideration than sympathy, there are two very basic questions to begin with asking, What, and Why.

1. What does it mean to 'Stand with...', and
2. Why should you stand, or do, anything at all?

1) The What, is what you probably notice first - what is the nature of the saying itself: "I stand with Charlie!"... stand with... what does that mean? And before going further, have you looked at what you'd be standing with, with 'Charlie Hebdo'? Have you ever seen Charlie Hebdo's cartoons? From the little that I have seen, they were worthless, trite, shallow, and crude - not nearly humorous enough to compensate for its juvenile scrawlings, which succeed mostly in making South Park seem positively high-brow by comparison.

Do you want to stand with that? I sure as heck don't. And yet such attacks cannot be tolerated... so there must be something more important involved here than what was being drawn or said, and who by, Right?

And how many of these events are you supposed to stand around with? Remember, it's islamists who've been behind these events, so you know that the roll call is long and getting longer every day - are you really going to recall, and stand with, every single one of them? How many can you recall, and what would it accomplish if you could recall them all?

It seems a plain fact that if you expect any productive resolution to the wrongs that have been done, simply by empathizing with the numerous victims and by commemorating these numerous events, you're not only in error, but you are enabling and emboldening those who commit such wrongs. It is apologists such as these who are the ones that are provoking further offenses, not those who are standing up for their reasonable rights, for weakness in defense of what is of great value - or irritation - is provocative to those who act by way of force, rather than reason.

Maybe we can learn something useful by leaving today's headlines behind for the moment and thinking back over the incidents of our own history. From 9/11 and on back to Pearl Harbor, and on back before that to the Lusitania, and back even further to the Alamo; leaving aside the particulars of the moment, the responses to those events were all shaped with a similar goal in mind. We didn't say "I stand with the Alamo!", we said

"Remember the Alamo!"

What was it we wanted to remember it for? To empathize with the slaughtered? To commemorate the tragedy of the date? No, we wanted to remember the outrage that had been done to us, we wanted to remember the vileness of it, we wanted to keep the utter unacceptability of it in the forefront of our minds, in order to focus our attentions upon it so that we'd be sure to decisively respond to that attack ASAP. Not simply to avenge the slaughter (another natural, though counter productive, reaction), but to respond to it in such a way as to ensure that the perpetrators would never attempt any such thing, ever again. That is, after all, the idea behind: 'Never Again!'.

Unfortunately while that historic response was once second-nature to Americans in particular, and to the West in general, it is becoming harder and harder to find in the world today.

2) And that leads us to the second basic question to be asked: Why are these attacks worthy of a response? Were they simply acts of violence in the workplace? Why were these people attacked?

Because of cartoons? Come on, you're going to have to do better than an 'informational text' level of reading these events, and even going down to the STEM level is too shallow as well; if you want to get to the roots of the matter, you're going to have to engage your mind and reason the matter through. Because what the islamists actually attacked is in all of these cases something that we as Westerners all have a vital share in, which is another reason why standing 'with' some particular set of victims, entirely misses and distracts us from the importance of what these barbarians actually attacked - it wasn't individuals or their actions, but a higher and more central concept, without which there would be no West in general, and certainly no America (hint hint).

The key to 'Why', is the phrase which most of the supporters and talking heads have been mouthing their support of in regards to Charlie Hebdo, and reluctantly, even dismissively, in regards to Pamella Geller's event, and that is of course:

Freedom of Speech!

Freedom? Free from who? Free from what? Speech for what?

Pursue such questions with a degree of intellectual honesty and integrity, and you can't help but begin to see what is so deeply offensive about those who turn away from those standing up for the concept of Freedom of Speech. Pursue that line of thought, and you'll soon discover what our united response should, and must be - if you want to remain free to speak as you choose, and speak to who you choose to, that is. For if you cannot express your opinions, then you surely make thinking upon them pointless, and if you can't think or speak your mind, then you couldn't possibly associate with who you choose to either, for those associations represent your thoughts and words in action every bit as much as writing an op-ed or drawing a cartoon do, and much more so. And if history offers up any lessons worth learning, it is that if you retreat from thinking, speaking and associating as you choose, then those empowered by your withdrawal, will do their best to gather the power to themselves to forbid you from reclaiming that ability for yourself.

Freedom of Speech and the liberty to live your own life, are inseparable, and those who expect apologies for defending it, owe all of humanity an apology, and much more.

But as those questions are rarely pursued, certainly not in school, and rarely in popular culture, the resulting weakness has incited remarks by everyone from the press, to academics, to the Pope himself, saying of those who spoke their minds,

"They should have expected it."

Ya know what? With irony firmly in cheek, to those saying 'they should have known better' or demanding an apology for speaking freely, I'd really like to pop 'em one in the nose.

Here we have a bunch of people, sheltered in the safety of the West, who have apparently not given much thought to what those words Freedom of Speech mean and entail. They may say the words at the drop of a hat, but they show no sign of having thought about what is meant by them, or what must be required of those who wish to freely say them. Could they have given even a moments thought to what it means on the face of it? Glance around this post, it doesn't take much to consider it, and yet they show no sign of ever having considered 'Free from___?'! Surely everyone else who has pursued those questions to even an inches worth of depth, will have good reason to be offended by these Vichy-westerners retreat and capitulation.

How dare they elevate the deliberate schemes of barbarians, to the rarefied level of a response which civilized people should have expected!

We do not need to stand with Charlie, or even with Pamella for that matter, instead we need to stand up for, and defend against any such attack, upon anybody, because all of the numerous particulars point to a vital principle which every aspect of Western Civilization depends upon being vigorously defended, and that is far more important than the particular wrongs that have been done in Garland TX, Paris, FR, or any where else in the world. What we should clearly see, now, especially after these latest events, is that it needs to be made very clear, that standing 'with' Charlie, is something that should not be done, instead we must all stand united against those who would silence any amongst us, and especially against those who would excuse their doing it!

Standing with those who were killed, rather than against those who killed them, is less than worthless, it is counter-productive. If you understand that a wrong was committed which must be addressed, and if you understand the nature of what that wrong was, then the civilized response, and the responsibility of a civil society, is first and foremost to eliminate the ability of the perpetrators to commit such barbaric acts towards your people, it means to take the words never again to heart.

The notion that there could be some reasonable 'cause' for the attacks, which the victims should have expected, is, technically speaking: Bullshit.

'The motive hunting of motiveless malignancy'
The English poet and critic Coleridge had a handy phrase for describing the villain Iago, of Shakespeare's play Othello. Iago had a grievance for every occasion, he swore multiple motivations for his villainous actions, motives which as with our our islamists today, changed with who it was he was busily justifying his actions to at the moment. Coleridge perfectly described these 'causes' as:

'the motive hunting of motiveless malignancy'

The motive is even less than a pretext, not even an excuse, it is more like a passive aggressive attack for being caught while knowingly engaging in purposefully bad behavior. Is it surprising that a barbarian plots to kill you because of the offense he so artfully cultivates towards you? No, no more so than it surprises me that an as yet unmannerd child will seek to snatch away another child's shiny new present, or will even begin throwing a tantrum if he's displeased with having to brush his teeth. But under no circumstances would I ever consider that the child's outbursts were caused by a parent giving the other child that gift or by telling their child to brush their teeth - indeed, saying or intimating such a thing would make it very difficult for that child to ever grow up.

Is that a fair comparison?

No, it's not, because a child, unlike the islamist, has the excuse and innocence of being a child; the child hasn't yet had the experience or opportunity or obligation to learn any more civilized behavior than that of a child, but the child is at least in the process of learning it, and their reaching maturity will be marked by having learned it.

The islamists who have no such excuse, are doing no such thing.

They have no intention of learning that the first response to an immature provocation is holding your temper, not excusing it; they have no intention of learning that that is what you Should do,and they have no intention of learning that that is the civil, and civilized, thing to do. Or put more pointedly and accurately, learning and habituating that lesson into your character is the mannered, polite, decent, charitable - Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian thing to do, and that is the heart and soul of what they attack why they attack it.

So here's a question for everyone from the press to the Pope, why are you trying to excuse the islamists from having to learn something which we still , even in the age of honey boo-boo, consider to be a  basic expectation of a decent and well behaved child? And why on earth do you consider islamists incapable of such fundamentals as are expected of even a child in the West? Who is really insulting who here?

Or more to the point, why are you trying to punish us for those virtues which the Islamists lack?

For the benefit of those who have learned their manners, and still find themselves having doubts, proper doubts, realize that it isn't sufficient to simply be troubled by them, it is your responsibility to consider the matter, to question, examine and question again, both what it is that is being said and what goes hushed and unsaid, question your assumptions, and question it all again, until those doubts are faced up to and satisfied.

If you still have doubts, then maybe you need to ask some questions about what others seem so sure about.

What do you get when you mix together 'Cannot' and 'Should Not', manners, ethics, social acceptability and law? Chaos, of course.
Even worse than those who 'Stand with Charlie' yet 'Run from Pamela', are those who have accused both of provoking the attacks upon them. Typical of these sentiments were those that were made by the Pope after the Charlie Hebdo attack, which has required entire PR flak teams to explain and clarify his statements (and most others he makes). Take a look and ask yourself how well could he have considered the meaning of what he was so dramatically and confidently saying:

'If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,' Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way.

'It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.'

... But the Pope said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs. He said: 'There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others. They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.'

This...coming as it does from the moral leader of the most philosophic church in Christendom, especially following the stature of the two preceding popes, is embarrassingly amateurish, and reveals his inclination towards making inept, confused and, IMHO, disingenuous attempts at seeming 'more real':

• 'If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,' Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way.

We don't even need to touch on the easy 'turn the other cheek' material, for while the law does recognize 'the heat of the moment' as a mitigating factor in an altercation, it does so only when it is done in the actual heat of the moment - that moment of emotionally overwhelming physical reaction when your response is immediate to the heat of the provocation, with no time for reflection and 'getting a grip'. But if you walk away and come back, you pass beyond the instance of physical reaction and into the space for conscious decision and as such you are no longer able to make the claim that you couldn't control yourself. Why? Because you so obviously are controlling yourself, you've passed from the control of your passions and regained your Reason, and then chose to use it unreasonably.

If I got in your face and insulted you or your mother, your heated response would be understandable, but barring my using actual 'fighting words', unless I actually threatened, punched or swung at you, then your response, even in the heat of the moment, would be limited to words as well - IOW you would not be lawfully justified in punching me in the nose for what came out of my mouth. Sure, any reasonable person would have understood your reaction, but in civil society we do still expect you to rise above that.

Impossible you say? Well, you might reconsider that, as you look at this assault upon a statue of the Virgin Mary:

"A man was kneeling in prayer before the statue of the revered Madonna, with the photograph of a loved one in hand, in the small chapel of St. Barnabas in Perugia (Italy), when he was attacked by five “immigrants.”

The first thing they did was rip the photo from his hands.

Next they unleashed their hatred against the image of the Virgin Mary. They broke the statue to pieces and then urinated on it.

Don Scarda, pastor of St. Barnabas, said the event was led by five “foreigners.” By the time police arrived at the chapel, the unidentified attackers had already fled."

That was an actual case of deliberate, verbal and physical provocation (and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that was very likely committed by islamists - though militant atheists wouldn't be out of the question), which nevertheless was not 'responded' to with assault or murder, even though the person attempting to pray no doubt felt quite enough passion to do so in the heat of the actual moment.

He, an obviously religious person, restrained himself. As he should have done.

Coldly cartoonish behavior
In the case of a cartoon of your prophet, or your mother, printed in a paper and at a distance in time and place, your immediate response may very well be to become incensed, even enraged over it, but as the cartoonist is not there pushing it in your face, knocking you down or urinating upon you, even though it may well be crude, insensitive and rude, they are not there, deliberately, physically, provoking you with it. And as moments, minutes, hours, days, months or even years pass, to say nothing of distance, the legitimacy of the 'heat of the moment' defense, as well as any appeal to it for understanding of any unreasonable violence, passes with it as well.

But when, at a cold remove in time and place, having made the decision to waive reason and stoke your passions, consuming the time and distance necessary to coldly plot, finance, schedule and execute an assault 'in response' to it, there is not only no heat of the moment there, there is no conceivable basis for calling it a 'response', rather than a conspiratorial plot. It is not something which any rational, civilized person, should ever have to concern themselves over 'expecting', and especially not for having expressed their opinion about something, be it prophets, mothers or anything else.

• 'It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.'

Who is he speaking as, a Pope or a Prince? Why is he speaking as if there were no distinction to be made between 'cannot' and 'should not'? When the Pope thoughtlessly says that a violent physical response to words is 'normal', it is appallingly wrong - and whether intentionally or negligently, in confusing moral right for legal right or for what is socially acceptable, or worse, combining them all into one hash, he risks losing all such distinctions between them in the process. In his attempts to bring clarity with this statement, as with so many others, he only personalizes a perceived offense, equivocates upon it, and reaches a conclusion that common sense would otherwise forbid, which, again, keeps the Vatican PR team busily employed.

For while insulting the faith of others might be something which a person in a polite social context should not do, it is something which they have an absolute individual right to do, and the law exists to uphold and defend their legal right to express their opinion freely, without fear of physical reprisals. Indeed, attempting to limit a persons ability to criticize another's faith would not simply create a slippery slope, but a landslide rushing towards the elimination of freedom of expression and of liberty itself.

The Pope, more than anyone else, should realize that there can be no moral choice to do what is Right, without also having the liberty to choose as you see fit! There can be no morality without choice, and indeed there would and could be no Christianity without the choice to choose it. And even if you tried to enforce inoffensiveness, how would you regulate it? The islamist sees wearing a crucifix as an insult to islam - if you give any credence to this, you cannot discount his claim. If the Pope actually believed his own words, or gave a moment's thought to what they must mean, and so acted upon them, then he would have to accede to the islamists demands that he eliminate his clothing, eliminate his followers crucifixes, and indeed eliminate the Catholic Church and his position within it! He did say "you cannot provoke", right? Or did he not really mean anything by his words?

It may be normal to find offense in what you seek to find offense in, but to retaliate against the expression of ideas as if actually and physically provoked, with calculated violence, is no more sympathetic than cold blooded murder, and it should not be portrayed as if it were understandable or sympathetic or in anyway equivalent to an actual, in the heat of the moment, provocation. To portray what is,as what is not, is an attempt to erase what is real and true, which leaves you at that place the last several posts have been seeking to define, the limbo point where all progress is measured from, and which moving towards can be nothing other than regress.

When we equivocate between what a person, ideally, should not do, and what they cannot be allowed to do, we create an opening, an intellectual and spiritual vacuum, which threatens to suck all that is truly good and holy down with it. Where you retreat from your Right, Power will surge in and take control of that which your rights once held claim to. When we use words, or when we allow our leaders to use words, not for what they in reality mean, but for appeasing and rearranging our feelings about our shared reality, we lose that much more of our ability to control our lives without resorting to force, for Reason can gain no traction when the words it relies upon have been willfully separated from reality, and in that resulting landscape, only power will decide, or rather force, the issues.

And that gets to the Zero-Point of Power, where force prevails over reason, where desires dominate rights, you've arrived back at that point from which all civilized progress is measured by a culture's distance from it. And key to that is facing up to an uncomfortable fact: The Truth doesn't cause violence, but the rejection of it does. And whether you had the best of intentions, or not, makes no difference at all. Regressing towards that Zero-Point, no matter what level of progress you may once have realized, if you move in that direction, you are heading backwards and downwards, and if you are advocating for such movement, you are quite literally Pro-Regressive

When that Pro-Regressive impulse gains popular power, your ability to live in Reality is diminished, which makes it very easy for others to impose their will upon you. When you allow your good intentions to overrule your real perceptions, then you are not operating in, with, or in accordance with, Reality... and where do you suppose that will leave you - a happy place?!

For a people's good intentions to be compatible with wise action, it requires a strong commitment to the truth. American's weakness today is that we'd prefer our good intentions to be free of that itsy-bitsy requirement, and indeed given a good story, especially one which makes claims to helping others, and ourselves, well hey, if you can do that without-even-having-to-do-anything-yourself, we'll seemingly buy that for a vote.

Where do you suppose that will leave us?

When we retreat from the requirements of reality into what we wish it would be, when we allow our good intentions to override our real perceptions, then reality recedes to low tide, making it the simplest of things for those in power to impose their very real preferences for your life, upon you. Unjust Power depends upon our conceding what is Just, it depends upon our disconnection from reality, it relies upon your willingness to accept a virtual reality in place of the reality you would otherwise be aware of, if you were willing to acknowledge and inhabit it, that is. But when your intellectual links to the world around you, are rooted in a more preferable set of self flattering and useful lies, those lies become the means of manipulating your actual sense of reality, from within and from without, aiding and abetting your blindness to it, for without Truth you have no ability to bring logic to bear, your mind is left spinning its wheels without the traction to escape from the intentions of those with Power over you.

And when you willfully take a fall like that, unlike in a cartoon, you don't get to simply dust yourself off and move on to the next scene.

Beep-beep!