'Cause I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I'll gladly thank the men who died to give that right to me. And I'll proudly stand up next to you to defend her still, today. 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land. God bless the USA!
Us Americans love that we're free. We talk about it all the time. But how often do we think critically about the constitutional framework that supports our freedom? Not often enough. That better change, though, because if President-Elect Trump's twitter feed is any indication, those constitutional supports won't be there for long after he takes the oath of office.
Today we're going to talk about why we need to hold onto our beloved First Amendment rights for dear life. Our discussion assumes that we are taking Trump's tweets seriously as they were written. This will not be a discussion of whether it is reasonable to take the President-Elect's tweets seriously, or a forum in which we mull over all of the myriad reasons why Trump tweets the way he does (Stephen Colbert of the Late Show offered an interesting explanation, however). Those are both deserving debates and they are ones we will have another day.
I can not believe that I actually had to type that last sentence. Everything about it feels surreal, and yet here we are. Last week (on November 29), out of the blue, President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted that those who burn the American flag ought to have their citizenship revoked, or at least spend a year in jail. And when I say "out of the blue" I mean out of the blue. Although the constitutionality of flag burning does pop up every now and again, it's been awhile since this discussion has been on the national radar. There haven't been any flag burnings in the news. It would seem that Trump woke up that morning, shrugged his shoulders, and thought to himself: "What the hell, I'll tweet about flag burning."
In other words: out. Of. The. Blue.
I'm not going to waste your time or insult your intelligence with a long, passionate speech about why the President-Elect shouldn't speak out against constitutionally-protected free speech and constitutionally-protected political dissent. We are starting with the assumption that we can all agree on those things. What I am focusing on here is the fact that the President-Elect is suggesting that American citizens should be stripped of citizenship for political dissent.
In America, we have birthright citizenship. (For a primer of what that means, click here.) If you are born here you are a citizen, and that can never be taken away from you. It is one of the many things that distinguishes Americans, and it is one of the many things of which we can be proud.
And President-Elect Donald Trump, weeks before assuming office, made a public statement in which he threatened to take that away from us. If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention.
Since Donald Trump was certified as the President-Elect, late on the night of November 8, he has tweeted 121 total tweets (as of 8:18 pm Central Standard Time 12/06). I have poured through all of them (you're welcome) and separated them into four troublesome categories, along with a category of "other." The four troublesome categories are: anti-media, anti-first-amendment otherwise, whining about the election, and self-congratulatory.
Here is how Trump's 121 tweets divide up:
Anti-media: 21 tweets, or 17%
Anti-First-Amendment Otherwise: 5 tweets, or 4%
Whining about the election: 21 tweets, or 17%
Self-Congratulatory: 10 tweets, or 8%
That leaves 64 tweets, or 52% as "other." But don't let that fool you. These tweets aren't wholly benign. All of Trump's antagonizing tweets about China fall into this category, for example, as do all of his tweets about Carrier (and the other businesses he's calling out by name, like Boeing).
What I want to highlight in this section, however, is the anti-media category, which currently comprises a full 17% of the President-Elect's tweets. Below are a few gems from this category.
ANTI-CNN
Jared Kushner is Trump's son-in-law, and he is also owner/publisher of the New York Observer. On Friday last the paper published an op-ed titled "Comey's FBI Needs to Investigate Violent Democratic Tantrums." Read the full text here. This is how the article begins:
3 Reasons We Need to Protect the First Amendment with Our Every Breath
- The President-Elect Wants to Strip Citizenship from Dissidents
I can not believe that I actually had to type that last sentence. Everything about it feels surreal, and yet here we are. Last week (on November 29), out of the blue, President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted that those who burn the American flag ought to have their citizenship revoked, or at least spend a year in jail. And when I say "out of the blue" I mean out of the blue. Although the constitutionality of flag burning does pop up every now and again, it's been awhile since this discussion has been on the national radar. There haven't been any flag burnings in the news. It would seem that Trump woke up that morning, shrugged his shoulders, and thought to himself: "What the hell, I'll tweet about flag burning."
In fact, as the picture above reveals, the flag-burning tweet came sandwiched in between a tweet denigrating CNN (a constitutionally problematic tweet in its own right) and a tweet offering condolences to the victims of Gatlinburg, Tennessee's recent wildfire.
In other words: out. Of. The. Blue.
I'm not going to waste your time or insult your intelligence with a long, passionate speech about why the President-Elect shouldn't speak out against constitutionally-protected free speech and constitutionally-protected political dissent. We are starting with the assumption that we can all agree on those things. What I am focusing on here is the fact that the President-Elect is suggesting that American citizens should be stripped of citizenship for political dissent.
In America, we have birthright citizenship. (For a primer of what that means, click here.) If you are born here you are a citizen, and that can never be taken away from you. It is one of the many things that distinguishes Americans, and it is one of the many things of which we can be proud.
And President-Elect Donald Trump, weeks before assuming office, made a public statement in which he threatened to take that away from us. If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention.
- The President-Elect is waging a constant war against the free press
Since Donald Trump was certified as the President-Elect, late on the night of November 8, he has tweeted 121 total tweets (as of 8:18 pm Central Standard Time 12/06). I have poured through all of them (you're welcome) and separated them into four troublesome categories, along with a category of "other." The four troublesome categories are: anti-media, anti-first-amendment otherwise, whining about the election, and self-congratulatory.
Here is how Trump's 121 tweets divide up:
Anti-media: 21 tweets, or 17%
Anti-First-Amendment Otherwise: 5 tweets, or 4%
Whining about the election: 21 tweets, or 17%
Self-Congratulatory: 10 tweets, or 8%
That leaves 64 tweets, or 52% as "other." But don't let that fool you. These tweets aren't wholly benign. All of Trump's antagonizing tweets about China fall into this category, for example, as do all of his tweets about Carrier (and the other businesses he's calling out by name, like Boeing).
What I want to highlight in this section, however, is the anti-media category, which currently comprises a full 17% of the President-Elect's tweets. Below are a few gems from this category.
ANTI-CNN
ANTI-ALL MEDIA
ANTI-NY TIMES
(These tweets deserve some special attention. It needs to be noted that the Times only found out that Trump cancelled the meeting through this very tweet. He never called them. Then, when the meeting finally took place, he spent most of it railing at the journalists for what he deemed unfavorable coverage. Reminder, this is the PRESIDENT-ELECT.)
ANTI-ALL MEDIA
- The President-Elect's Family is Calling for FBI Investigations of Political Dissidents
Jared Kushner is Trump's son-in-law, and he is also owner/publisher of the New York Observer. On Friday last the paper published an op-ed titled "Comey's FBI Needs to Investigate Violent Democratic Tantrums." Read the full text here. This is how the article begins:
It’s time for the FBI to conduct a detailed investigation into the violence and political thuggery that continue to mar the presidential election’s aftermath. A thorough probe of the protests—to include possible ties to organizations demanding vote recounts—will give the Bureau’s integrity-challenged director, James Comey, a chance to sandblast his sullied badge.
Director Comey must also include “elector intimidation” on his post-election investigation list. Reports that members of the Electoral College are being harassed and threatened by angry, vicious (and likely Democratic Party) malcontents require Comey’s quick and systematic attention.
In other words, the author is calling for the FBI to embark on an all-out investigation of citizens who are expressing their constitutionally-protected right of free speech.
Think on that for awhile, friends.
Until next time, my fellow Americans!
The revolution will be tweeted! Follow me: @LiteraryGrrrl
Think on that for awhile, friends.
Until next time, my fellow Americans!
The revolution will be tweeted! Follow me: @LiteraryGrrrl
No comments:
Post a Comment