I think the better question would be why did it need to be added in the first place? Is it that a former government attempted to control speech? Same government attempted to control religious choice as well which we have another amendment that separates church from state. These things weren't floating thoughts, they came from experience and the willing to fight for the right to have them. If not, we'd still be in England wouldn't we?
I dunno. Are Canada and Australia freedomless cesspools that are still "in" England?
Obviously the war that created the US benefited our right to free speech. It benefited all our rights, because it created our friggin government. However, at heart, those people fought for independece. They wanted to make their own government. Does that mean they fought for free speech? By default, yes. But that also means they fought for the right to own slaves. The founding fathers did end up creating a good government. Damn good, in fact. But it's historically inaccurate to say that the American revolution was fought for specific causes like that.
Anyway, my question was at what point in the history of the United States (post first amendment) has their been a foreign or domestic enemy who's tried to subdue that right, and our military had to put them down.
Keep in mind this is just a pocket debate about the relationship between soldiers and the first amendment. It's not really related to the whole "heroes" argument. In fact, I don't even care that much so I'll go ahead and spoil the ending.
Yes, citzens can and
should speak out against soldiers if they disagree with their practices. They should speak out against
anything they disagree with. Hypothetically even if soldiers did go out and fight an enemy that was gunning for our free speech, that wouldn't give them a survivoresque "immunity stick" against criticism.
Most people have at least one political aspect they're passionate about. For me it's that first amendment. The significance of those people writing that little line two hundred years ago, is more mind bogglingly awesome than most realize. So when I see the statement "soldiers fight for our freeom of speech so don't use it against them." I just see the double whammy of ignorance and misunderstanding.
if I had my choice, there would be no need for war at all.
That's the choice of pretty much everyone in this thread.
And I don't hear anyone on this board saying soldiers are unconditional heroes; it is those of you on the dissenting side of the argument that are making those statements.
I feel unclean having read that.
I personally think the heroes are the ones who make it back home and manage to transition back into society because so many of them come home physicially and mentally scarred for life. But that's not just describing soldiers either; how about the police and firefighters who survived 911? The doctors and nurses who had the "recovery" and identification of what was left of the casualties? They may still be trying to sleep at night behind that and it was nearly 8 years ago. It might just be their job, but it certainly doesn't make it any easier to do.
Again, that's the point we're trying to make. Firefighters, cops, soldiers, bakers, crazy people on the street
can be heroes. But saying they are based soley on their profession is meaningless. It's what that group (allegedly) is for.
It's strange that everyone in this thread is essentially arguing for the same point.
