how about something a little more current.
like suspending civil liberties to "ensure the protection of American citizens". for example...
if you were to say, "FUCK THE USA, FUCK GEORGE W. BUSH, I WANT TO KILL THAT STUPID RIGHT WING MOTHERFUCKER, AND WATCH HIM BLEED" to one of the military policemen at Grand Central, you'd be in for a bit of trouble. However, if you said the same thing to a policeman at Grand Central last year, they'd just tell you to keep your voice down.
so in this way, freedom of speech has been limited. of course anyone screaming things like that sounds an awful lot like a terrorist, and it seems only natural that he or she would be taken in and questioned. however, that does not change the fact that the first amendment grants freedom of speech. there is the "clear and present danger" clause which limits it, but an unarmed civilian saying he wants to kill the president does not present much of a danger.
this may be a minor suspension of liberties, but where does it stop? who's to say when too much is too much? when protection becomes oppression? is Bush to be trusted?
|