DARE TEST THE 1st AMENDMENT? DAMN RIGHT!

Now when would anyone dare test something so sacred as our 1st amendment...? Well, perhaps when it's being abused as often as it's being used. I dare to call to the witness chair (1) the media (2) the ACLU.

In the case of the media, a free press is without question essential to a democracy. But a carefree one? We could bring the New Media to the stand, for god knows bloggers tend to stretch the boundaries of truth and propriety at the click of a keypad. However, lets stick with the more responsible Old Media. In this morning's Chicago Tribune and New York Times the headlines raise alarms about "making Illinois the next Gitmo" and "one of the highest-profile, highest-security terrorism trials in history" to be set in the heart of the New York.

Our right to free speech has been tested by the courts many times, but lets take this Gitmo scare as a handy case in point. If indeed the Feds buy the Thomson Correction Center 150 miles west of Chicago, how fair and valid is it to stir the fears and passions of the citizenry, when this will mean little more than adding to an Illinois prison population already studded with dangerous and demonic criminals? It is entirely reasonable to expect a safe, secure transfer that warrants no more hysterical attention than when even more heinous murderers were locked up throughout our state's history.

Ahhh, but it makes good copy. Fear sells. And under the flag of free speech, every barbershop, beauty salon, cable channel and talk-radio station will bubble and babble for weeks. And for what? Come on, guys, it's sillier and less productive than Monday morning quarterbacking about something far beyond most of our expertise. So why not let the folks we elected do their job without the fury and frills of useless public rage?

Then there's the ACLU. A prince of 1st amendment applications, the ACLU can boast a proud history of public service. However, how many times have they been intoxicated with their own selective interpretation of the 1st amendment at the cost of the human hurt their court actions have impacted! Organized religion is of course one of their major concerns, but how often has their constitutional fury been unleashed without much concern for the emotional toll on the defendants?

For example, there is a federal park in the Southwest where a large cross has been planted in monumental memory to deceased World War I veterans. For generations, people here have held this to be a sacred memorial. Now, however, young tailored lawyers with no personal knowledge of World War I have swooped in to demand the federal government remove the cross. Why...? Well, of course, the operative explanation is their bristly interpretation of separation-of-church-and-state. When asked about the resulting separation of sacred memories from this cross, the lawyers I'm told had little to say.

Bottom line -- for every right there exists an obligation. To use it your right with a sense of justice and compassion for the other side. As it's been written: "My right to my fist ends where it meets your right to your nose!"