In Defense of Smut and Other Agg

In Defense of Smut and Other Aggravations

More than 200 years ago a group of men sat down and wrote down a few words that reinforced some of the ideals that they and their contemporaries fought and died for during the American Revolution. These ideals included such things as the freedom to speak one=s mind about something, even if others feel threatened. They included the freedom to express your own religious belief - or no religious belief at all. They included the freedom to engage in protests against one=s own government, even if it meant taking such protests to the streets. They included the freedom to write opinions in newspapers, even if those opinions seemed outlandish.

I am referring here to the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional Amendments, which include the right of people to be secure in their own homes, to be free from the unreasonable intrusions by agents of their government. They include the right to a trial by a jury of one=s peers, to be free from being deprived of their own property or liberty without due process of law, to confront one=s accusers, and, yes, even the right to bear arms.

These rights are too often taken for granted by the citizens of this country. Too many of us do not want to grant these rights to people whose actions and/or beliefs we hate and abhor. Too many of us think that criminals have too many rights, when they are the rights we would insist upon if we were ever in their shoes. At the heart of these rights is one very simple, yet often difficult principle to accept: they are suppose to apply to everyone equally (the sad reality is somewhat different from the ideal, unfortunately). We need to accept this basic principle, because if we begin to grant exceptions - because of certain actions by certain individuals - including the most dangerous criminals I might add - then they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

During the past century the American Civil Liberties Union has fought to defend these rights. On many occasions those they have defended have raised the ire of many citizens. People do not usually notice until a notorious criminal is released on a Atechnicality@ or the ACLU steps in to defend truly obnoxious behaviors and/or life-styles (e.g., distributors of Asmut,@ gay people, etc.).

A few years ago a former student of mine, in his first year of law school, was in a class where they were discussing a pending case of someone accused of murder. There were plenty of witnesses and most believed the accused was Aobviously guilty.@ He was asked by his relatives, with whom he was living at the time, AHow can you defend someone like this?@ or words to that effect. His answer was: AI am not so much defending him as I am defending a very important principle - that every citizen of a democracy like ours has the same rights as everyone else.@ This is what separates us from totalitarian states; it is what separates us from those repressive regimes that would deny basic human rights to its citizens. And it is what thousands of young men and women have fought and died for in four major wars during the last 100 years.

The controversy surrounding the ACLU has once again emerged, following Gigi Generaux=s article about local ACLU Director Gary Peck in City Life (Oct. 19). I was glad she wrote this article, which caused me to be even more appreciative of what the ACLU has done and continues to do, but more specifically what Gary Peck has done. It takes courage for him to do the things he does - in fact, it takes courage to stand up for unpopular beliefs. I am certain that the Founding Fathers would be proud.

What really bothers me is the fact that these simple statements, the Bill of Rights, reflecting a long history dating back at least as far as the Magna Carta in the 13^th century, can raise the ire of so many people, often eliciting totally irrational reactions laced with vitriol and demagoguery reminiscent of Joe McCarthy and similar reactionaries of American history.

Such irrationality sees a communist conspiracy everywhere. Such a view also sees the world in very simplistic, either-or, black or white, terms.

One of the reasons we need organizations like the ACLU is that many Americans can support and condone some of the most repressive actions that the Bill of Rights tries to prevent. Such repressive actions usually occur during times of deep-seated fear and hysteria, such as what occurred during the time of the Palmer Raids in the late 1910s and early 1920s, in addition to the incarceration of over a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans during World War II, the repressive actions of Joe McCarthy and even today as millions are denied their rights because of the notorious Awar on drugs.@

The irony here is that those who would tear down the ACLU would also tear down the very rights that give them the freedom to speak their mind. I wonder what they think of people like Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams and all the others who helped put together the Constitution and the Bill of Rights amendments?