Sick Semper Tyrannosaurus

What is this plot by the British to control free speech in the United States? Undoubtedly the American media is too busy with election results to post the following:

White House Must Shut Down Hate Videos on You Tube

In it, we read that, "Baroness Neville-Jones, the security minister, called on President Barack Obama's administration to 'take down this hateful material' in cases where servers were based in the US. She said websites that 'incite cold-blooded murder' would 'categorically not be allowed in the UK'". As well, we read, "The Home Office confirmed yesterday that pressure was being put on the White House to remove the sermons. A spokesman for the US State Department would say only that it had 'significant legal authorities' to act 'where activities on the internet pose a clear threat to the public'".

Two hundred thirty some years ago 13 colonial legislatures and their armies rejected the things that would not be allowed in the UK.

Once upon a time, in a newly formed nation that styled itself The United States of America, the representatives of the people put forward a Constitution that was designed to prevent the government from having power over the people. One of the first things the young nation did was reinforce the chains on government by instituting a law that Congress -- the only authority in the United States which could legitimately pass rules for all the people of all the States -- "shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …"

Freedom is at best an uncomfortable luxury. It requires the exercise of responsibility, both personal and communal. A free people must practice self control, and self denial, of desires to force others to view thoughts, expressions, and events in the same manner as does the majority. Personal freedom is the antithesis of democracy.

In the desire to be comfortable we, as a nation, have sunk to pitiful degradation of our liberties in that we commonly discuss what are viewed as necessary restrictions on speech. Congress has seen fit to put limits on political speech through "campaign finance reform", and on unpleasant -- perhaps humiliating or aggravating or frightening to the hearers -- speech through "regulation of hate speech". Let it be remembered that no man is free unless all are free; free to believe and express their beliefs freely no matter how offensive the expression.

The only legitimate limitation we have historically placed on the freedom of expression is the requirement that each person be responsible for his or her actions. In the Christian tradition, each individual makes the decision to carry out a good or an evil deed. "The Devil made me do it" is not a valid defense before the Judgement Seat of God, and was never held to be a valid defense by our Founding Fathers. The Paganization of America has brought us to the point where it is acceptable to think that someone or something else is responsible for a person's lack of self control.

If indeed a "spokesman for the US State Department would say only that it had 'significant legal authorities' to act 'where activities on the internet pose a clear threat to the public'", then that spokesman has committed treason against the Constitution of the United States by giving them "Aid and Comfort" (Article 4, Section 3) and needs to be punished by Congress as stated in that section. No such "significant legal authorities" exist in our Constitution.

The mutterings and screechings of Al Quaeda may be incitement to mayhem when weak-minded people listen to them. The British Members of Parliament, however, have every power under their own laws to cut off access to You Tube in Great Britain. That they are too cowardly to do so against the wishes of their constituencies is no reason for the government of the United States to violate its own charter of legitimacy.