Government no longer exists to protect individual rights

Two days ago, this page ran an editorial concerning censorship of collegiate newspapers. To summarize: an appeals court recently ruled that universities could censor student publications if they received funding from the university. The concern is that this sets precedents for blanket censorship of collegiate papers, regardless of the funding situation.

Let me start off by saying the Collegiate Times editorial board was right on the mark in its assessment of the situation. The case (Hosty v. Carter) is on its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The CT board appropriately asked what it would say about free speech rights if the appeals court ruling is upheld.

However, this case is only one aspect of a much deeper issue regarding fundamental human rights. And by “fundamental human rights” I mean that all individuals have the right to live as they see fit, so long as they do not infringe on the right of others to do the same.

This remarkably simple, yet relatively new concept—“new” meaning a few centuries compared with four millennia of recorded history—serves largely as the foundation of the United States. You can see it outlined in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, better known as the Bill of Rights: Individuals have the right to voice their opinion (First Amendment); we have the right to self-defense (2nd Amendment); we have the right to privacy against an over-intrusive government (4th Amendment); we have the presumption of innocence and the right of due legal process when charged with a crime (5th Amendment); we have the right to a public trial and of legal counsel (6th Amendment).

These are just a few examples, yet can anyone deny that such things are inherent human rights? Unfortunately, there are many people in this country who truly despise individual rights, and they come from both sides of the over-simplistic left-right political spectrum.

Radical conservatives and liberals alike both have a nasty habit of wanting to oppress free speech, and by extension free thought. One may be labeled a terrorist sympathizer or an enemy of diversity, depending upon what you say to whom. The sad part is that free speech has never caused anyone harm. It does, however, offend people from time to time. Some get so offended that they are willing to suppress free thought through censorship.

Then there are the liberals who detest the right to self-defense. I do not understand why they want innocent individuals to walk around helpless. I can only assume it is because they believe that as soon as someone has a weapon (read: firearm) said person instantly becomes a violent criminal. Much in the same way that smoking marijuana turns Negroes and Mexicans into uncontrollable monsters who rape white women, I suppose.

What about due process? A US citizen by the name of Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago in 2002 by federal authorities. His crime? We don’t know, because he has been held in a military prison without any charges brought against him. Speculation is that he was an al-Qaida operative with plans to detonate “dirty bombs” in the US. If that is true, then why doesn’t the government charge him and attempt to convict him?

Padilla’s plight recently was heard by an appeals court, which ruled that during wartime the President can jail someone indefinitely without charge. Does it strike anyone besides me as ironic that we say we are promoting individual freedom abroad yet we oppress such basic rights here at home?

The truly frightening part is that every infringement of individual liberty has been made law by a democratically elected legislature and/or has been upheld by a court. This means that our government no longer exists to preserve rights, but instead has decided that it grants us privileges to be taken away on a whim.

Do we wish to live in a world where our rights can be trampled upon by popular opinion? The Founding Fathers didn’t think so. Samuel Adams (a patriot more than brewer) argued in his Harvard master’s thesis that it was lawful to resist an oppressive government to preserve individual liberty. Small wonder he led such terrorist acts at the Boston Tea Party.

I agree wholeheartedly with Adams: We are not obligated to obey a government that takes away human rights. Fortunately, I believe that I am not alone in this assessment. However, it will take courage and knowledge to stem the tide of tyranny. We cannot defend our rights if we, the people, do not know what they are.

With that in mind, I make the following offer: Anyone who would like a free pocket-sized copy of the Constitution with Bill of Rights may have one by sending e-mail to liberty@vt.edu. Don’t let ignorance be the first milestone on the road to servitude.