Sunday, September 29, 2013

The Constitutionally protected human right to express anger against the government and government officials

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides protection for people who want to petition their government for redress.  And by extension it protects people who want to petition their governmental officials for redress.

What if  the government, or government official's response makes the petitioner feel anger?

Does the First Amendment protect a human right to feel angry?  Does it then protect a human right to express that anger in the tone of their voice, and the look in their eye?

Is there a human right to express anger *in the face of government?

*In an aside; My right to free expression has been limited by government lawyers.  I find now, I have to qualify anything I write, lest its meaning be misconstrued in their litigation against us.

When I used the phrase in the face of government, it will be written;, see, he thinks it's OK to get in people's faces
I never have, I do not now, nor will I ever, get "in their face" except from the podium during my two minutes during public forum.
We're talking about what people are allowed say and express from the podium when they have the floor.

And the question is; if a petitioner feels disrespect for their government, does the First Amendment protect their right to express it, in a public forum?

The law is the only legitimate limit on liberty.

The only legitimate limit on the free exercise of human rights protected under the First Amendment is the law.  If a politician or public servant needs to be further protected than they are by the law, from anger and disrespect of those they serve, they need permission to provide it.  They have to ask the people first.

For as long as it is; government of, by and for the people,
the people hold the only legitimate authority to limit
the free exercise of their Constitutionally protected human rights.

The terms of public in-servitude are the prerogative of the people, not of their servants.

It is up to the people to further protect public servants
from the justified and legally expressed wrath of those they serve, if they need it.

Allowing public servants to limit criticism and free expression
is rather like allowing convicts to tell the judge
what they will or will not accept as sentences.

If the relationship between government and the people
is not one of servant and master, what is it?

What two other words describe the relationship?

Who decides which two words they are,
the government or the people?

The leadership of the APS is using operational funds
(money that could and should be spent in classrooms instead)
to argue that it is they; Marty Esquivel, Winston Brooks,
Steve Tellez, and Monica Armenta who will decide
what are the limits on emotions that the people may express
at public forum.

Their sworn testimony leads us to believe;
It will be "OK" to express emotion if you are happy,
but not OK if you are not happy, and in particular,
if you appear angry.
They spend on this litigation without limit and, without oversight.

They get away with it because
the establishment's media is in cahoots.

People like Journal Editor
Kent Walz. and the people
like him, at KRQE, KOAT
and KOB TV; not one of
whom will identify themself
as the person most responsible
for letting these people slide.

photo Mark Bralley

No comments: