Susanne Posel
The application of redefining words in our culture is a turned that focuses on inciting a specific reaction. The art of redefining words in the social consciousness eliminates the original meaning of our complex mode of communication. One of the most effective ways of accomplishing this goal is to take ideals out of context.
In essence, people in general judge their personal involvement in an ideal based on their understanding of the words used.
The definition becomes the end-and-be-all and the final inspiration to action when the person interpreting the words feels aligned with the definition.
In an op-ed piece, Erin McKeen explains this phenomenon as: “But the traditional dictionary definition, although it bears all the trappings of authority, is in fact a highly stylized, overly compressed and often tentative stab at capturing the consensus on what a particular word ‘means’.”
Samuel Johnson, author of the preface in the Dictionary of the English Language, wrote: “Ideas of the same race, though not exactly alike, are sometimes so little different that no words can express the dissimilitude, though the mind easily perceives it when they are exhibited together.”
The 1st Amendment has been misused for personal gain by many provocateurs who mean to participate in the redefining of this Constitutional Right for the expressed purpose of inciting the general public.
The 1st Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Being able to say anything has become the socially accepted definition of the 1st Amendment; however this is a redefining of the ideal behind words.
Speech not covered by the 1st Amendment include:
• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (includes libel, slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes
Provocateurs and opportunists commonly use the 1st Amendment as their legal right to say anything they want; and in their defense, they redefine the ideal behind the Constitutional Right.
Talk radio hosts are notorious for misusing the 1st Amendment to defend their egregious verbal assaults and coercions of their audience to rally for violence by justifying their desire to commit crimes.
In public, the “freedom of speech is NOT freedom from the consequences if incredibly offensive speech.”
Nat Hentoff, senior fellow at the Cato Institute states that the Founding Fathers created the Committees of Correspondence in order to exercise their 1st Amendment rights while still under occupation by the British soldiers.
Congress has a history of trying to federalize a “fair and balanced” control over commentary on radio and television broadcasts. Senators such as Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have championed the protection of 1st Amendment rights; the catch being that the redefinition of the 1st Amendment would be provided by the federal government – as well as the application of this new definition.
While provocateurs assault the airwaves and their audience with calls for violence which are justified under a twisted redefinition of the 1st Amendment, President Obama has been exposed at the center of a censoring of the mainstream media through intimidation tactics such as the confiscation of emails and telephone calls of reporters.
When the general public’s comprehension of the 1st Amendment is muddied by the social redefining of its meaning, they can be swayed to supporting the incorrect application of the 1st Amendment over the actual intention of the Constitutional Right.
Ken Auletta, journalist for the New Yorker, explained that: “The framers had in mind the First Amendment, basically. … They gave the First Amendment as a way of giving a fourth branch of government — in fact, the press — an ability to question those in power in any of those three branches of government.”
The Obama administration has responded to this confusion over how the 1st Amendment is applied and what it meant by issuing a presidential memorandum entitled, “National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs” that outlines the provision “and guidance to promote the development of effective insider threat programs within departments and agencies to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security.”
Obama further defines this safety measure by stating: “Our nation’s security requires classified information to be shared immediately with authorized users around the world but also requires sophisticated and vigilant means to ensure it is shared securely.”
This is the disingenuous meaning behind redefining words and changing the social understanding of the 1st Amendment.
Opportunists will grab onto this general assumption that their audience is ignorant to vie for emotional reactions to injustices related to 1st Amendment Rights when in fact it is the redefinition of the 1st Amendment that is being rallied for by the general masses.
This temperament is the precursor to censorship. Once Americans no longer truly understand their Constitutional Rights, they cannot exercise them properly. This opens society up to being controlled by their government.
When the audience supports calls for violence by those who wield influence over them, the federal government responds with more control measures.
Eventually it will be of little consequence what the Founding Fathers meant by including freedom of speech as the 1st Amendment.
Susanne Posel’s Website is Occupy Corporatism.
