CommentsMY TURN--Two diametrically opposite events caught my attention recently and yet they shared an underlining theme: Freedom of speech. What does the first amendment to the Constitution really mean? I'm sure the Founding Fathers (FF) saw it differently than we do today. Just like many other issues in our contemporary life we interpret differently.
I recently saw the Broadway show Hamilton and even though there was certainly poetic license taken, attitudes were loud and clear. I must admit for the first fifteen minutes I understood about every sixth word. Rap is not my first language. Those of you who have not seen it are in for a magical evening. The imagination and creativity it took to write a musical about the writing of the constitution was awesome. If you are not rap literate I suggest you listen to the CD first.
It was very clear the founders were not terribly impressed with the common man (men). Hamilton was a real snob. He and most of his peers decided that the government should be a Republic not a direct democracy. They didn't think the average man was smart enough to vote for officials or laws.
They needed someone more intelligent to make those decisions. Therefore ‘qualified’ Americans would vote for someone smarter and more knowledgeable to make the final choices. A belief that gave birth to the outdated Electoral College concept that elected our current president. It is becoming more and more obvious that Congress does not represent the ‘best’ and ‘brightest’ with notable exceptions.
The Bill of Rights has changed over the years. The FF's could not foresee the incredible changes ahead for the country they were designing.
As with the Ten Commandments, I find it impossible to take each word written in 1779 to be applicable today. A framework is just that and in order to be meaningful it must be applicable to the times we are living in … otherwise it eventually dies. The Great religions, with the exception of Islam, have all learned to become more relevant.
What does freedom of speech mean? We all know that one cannot scream about a fake fire in a crowded building. But the right to express one's opinion is still sacred. This is why I find myself despairing that Colleges and Universities are trying to keep different opinions from being heard.
I have a granddaughter who is a sophomore in College. I want her to be able to listen to all opinions and then make rational choices. One of college’s important obligations is to teach critical thinking. If everything is spoon fed and willing to swallow whatever is on that spoon … one becomes vulnerable and tends to make decisions based on emotions and not facts.
It will not hurt her one bit to listen to a Ben Shapiro, Steve Bannon or Ann Coulter. The same way it won't hurt to hear Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. When it comes to people like David Duke maybe we put a caveat in about inciting violence. Shouting people down ... wrecking personal property … are not going to achieve results. That goes for those on the extreme right AND the extreme left.
Like many of you I have often wanted to "unfriend" Facebook peeps whose opinions I abhor. Yet how can I counter their arguments, unless I understand where they are coming from?
I hate to admit it but I have to agree with Attorney General Jeff Sessions on this issue. In a speech in front of the Georgetown Law Center this week he said, "Freedom of thought and speech on the American Campus are under attack. Universities, which once were a place of robust debate, are becoming an echo chamber of political correctness and homogeneous thought ... a shelter for fragile egos"
Sessions said that the Justice Department would begin to intervene in court cases where the government believes colleges are violating the First Amendment by limiting free speech issue.
The students and faculty, who are protesting by not allowing the speaker the courtesy of an audience, are making a decision for those who are interested in what the speaker has to say. That is NOT the democratic process! They don't have the right. If they don't want to hear what the speaker has to say ... they have the right NOT to attend. What are they afraid of? Audience discomfort does not trump the right to free speech.
Lastly, you are probably tired of hearing about the NFL and the National Anthem. I saw a few posts on FB talking about the Department of Defense paying players to stand on the sidelines during the singing of the national anthem. I immediately thought it was fake news.
So I went to my "fact checker" sources. It appears there is a mixture of truth and fiction. Here is what Scopes and Fact Checker had to say:
'It has been in the public spotlight ever since San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick began protesting police brutality by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem during exhibition games played prior to the start of the 2016 NFL season. Several other players, including some in other sports, have since taken part in similar silent demonstrations during the 2016 and 2017 seasons.
'Tom E. Curran of Comcast SportsNet New England reported … that teams standing together on the field during the playing of the national anthem was a relatively recent development in NFL history: “NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed that this practice began in 2009, adding, ‘As you know, the NFL has a long tradition of patriotism. Players are encouraged but not required to stand for the anthem.'”
'What actually changed in 2009, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, was that (due to network timing issues) players had previously remained in their locker rooms during the playing of the national anthem for primetime games. After 2009, players appeared in the sidelines for the anthem during primetime games, just as they had been doing all along for Sunday afternoon games. (The distinction often went unnoticed by viewers, as network telecasts frequently didn’t air the pre-game anthem ceremonies.)
"ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith referenced Currant’s report adding a “paid patriotism” element to the mix:
"The players were moved to the field during the national anthem because it was seen as a marketing strategy to make the athletes look more patriotic. The United States Department of Defense (DOD) paid the National Football League $5.4 million between 2011 and 2014, and the National Guard [paid] $6.7 million between 2013 and 2015 to stage on-field patriotic ceremonies as part of military recruitment budget-line items.
"The practice of “paid patriotism” came to light on 30 April 2015, when Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) released a statement chiding the New Jersey Army National Guard for paying between $97,000 and $115,000 to the New York Jets for a series of promotions involving military personnel. That November Flake and fellow Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain issued a report stating that the Defense Department had been paying for patriotic displays in football and other sports between 2011 and 2014:
"Contrary to the public statements made by DOD and the NFL, the majority of the contracts — 72 of the 122 contracts we analyzed — clearly show that DOD paid for patriotic tributes at professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer games. These paid tributes included on-field color guard, enlistment and reenlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, ceremonial first pitches͕ and puck drops.
"The National Guard paid teams for the “opportunity” to sponsor military appreciation nights and to recognize its birthday. It paid the Buffalo Bills to sponsor its Salute to the Service game. DOD even paid teams for the “opportunity” to perform surprise welcome home promotions for troops returning from deployments and to recognize wounded warriors.
"While well intentioned, we wonder just how many of these displays included a disclaimer that these events were in fact sponsored by the DOD at taxpayer expense. Even with that disclosure, it is hard to understand how a team accepting taxpayer funds to sponsor a military appreciation game, or to recognize wounded warriors or returning troops, can be construed as anything other than paid patriotism.
"However, this report did not cover the year 2009, so it is unclear whether NFL teams’ appearing on the field for the playing of the national anthem truly began in conjunction with the “paid patriotism” policy. In a September 2017 piece about the anthem controversy, CNN noted that:
"[T]he connection between “paid patriotism” and players being mandated to be present for the anthem is tenuous. The report does mention several instances where teams were paid for anthem performances, but that was about the specific artist or presentation. There is nothing in the report to suggest teams were paid or coerced into pulling players on to the field as part of “paid patriotism” initiatives.
"In fact, Pentagon spokesman Army Major Dave Eastburn recently clarified the Defense Department’s current relationship with professional sports.
“DOD does not require or request that athletes be on the field during the playing of the national anthem when military members are part of the patriotic opener,” he said in a statement to CNN."
So there you have two theories. Personally, I always stand and sing loudly...probably off key! The Hollywood Bowl Summer classical season starts with the orchestra playing the national anthem before every performance. There are always a variety of international conductors. One concert, a few years ago, the conductor was unaware of this tradition and went immediately into the program. He couldn't have gotten more than five notes when the 15,000 person audience arose and started singing the Star Spangled Banner. The orchestra caught on quickly and immediately switched. I don't remember the conductor but I do remember the audience.
I think the Dallas Cowboys were a good example. They kneeled before the anthem was played and stood up during it. Sports are a great American past time. Those players who feel that changes need to be made should also do some grass roots promotion and get people registered to vote.
They have done the symbols, now do the work!
As always comments welcome.
(Denyse Selesnick is a CityWatch columnist. She is a former publisher/journalist/international event organizer. Denyse can be reached at: [email protected]).
-cw
