Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Petition To Deport Piers Morgan; "Libertarian" Debate

Posted Dec 23, '12 at 6:31pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,070 posts

Knight

Currently, there is a petition going around to deport Piers Morgan back to Britain.

British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

I am a libertarian.

Normally, I wouldn't bother with this kind of news. I highly doubt anything will happen with this petition, and I'm confident Morgan won't be deported. However, two libertarians I am subscribed to have expressed their support for Morgan's deportation, and even more libertarians expressed their support in the comments. I believe their support goes completely against libertarian principles, to a point where I feel they have undermined their own philosophies on the first amendment completely. Luckily, I'm not the only libertarian to oppose this petition!

This rant is aimed towards libertarians and those who value the constitution. If you feel out of place since you're not a libertarian, or you don't have an opinion on what I'm talking about, feel free to comment on the petition itself.

...

Libertarians greatly value the constitution, especially the first handful of amendments.

Piers Morgan talked about how American's should repeal the 2nd amendment. Many people feel this is an attack on the 2nd amendment, which justifies government taking action against Mr. Morgan. The very first thing that might pop in your head is, "What about the first amendment that protects freedom of speech and press?" Sine Morgan is not a U.S. citizen, everyone argues that the constitution doesn't protect him.

Libertarians should value Morgan's freedom of speech, regardless as to whether he's protected by the constitution or not. The reason freedom of speech exists is because we can't trust the government to dictate what should and should not be said. If someone is wrong, it's up to the people to debunk such ideas themselves. It's based off the idea that no matter how many people oppose an idea, the minority who do support said idea might just be right, and they might just need freedom of speech to spread their idea. But what does any of this have to do with Piers Morgan?

The idea that Piers Morgan should be deported is based off the fact that he's not a U.S. citizen. But, I must ask, why does it matter if he's a U.S. citizen or not? Just because he was born on a different plot of soil, he shouldn't be allowed to speak his mind? Many people argue that Morgan is trying to change laws that effect citizens, without being one himself. This argument is very poor, because we don't support censoring foreigners who tell American's to change their laws on British soil, do we? His location is irrelevant.

...

A few people have pointed out that what Piers is doing is an act of sedition. Again, this argument is completely bunk from a libertarian perspective. We must recognize that sedition is based off of action, not one's citizenship. If Morgan's speech is an act of sedition, then anyone who shares his views and spreads them are also committing an act of sedition regardless of citizenship.  If speaking against the 2nd amendment is sedition, and it justifies deporting a foreigner, then it also justifies the arrest of American citizens.

Already, you can tell that sedition is a form of censorship. So far, one person has admitted that if Morgan was a citizen, he should be put on trial. This raises yet another point. What counts as an act of sedition? Trying to convince people and the government to change the 2nd amendment?

The evidence the 1st amendment protects people who speak against the constitution can be seen in Article 5.

Article 5 - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Clearly, the constitution describes a way in which the constitution may be altered. If nobody is allowed to convince the government to change the constitution, why would the very constitution give the government the power to make changes to itself (the constitution)?

It would make no sense what-so-ever to have Article 5 if the Constitution is to never be altered, or if altering the Constitution is to never be discussed.

To sum up this argument, you can't deport Morgan for sedition without charging citizens who share those views of the same thing. If you charge the citizens of sedition because they spoke about changing the 2nd amendment, then you are breaking the 1st amendment.

There's my rant.

 

Posted Dec 23, '12 at 7:14pm

wontgetmycatnip

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

Forcefully deporting political opponents is not the mark of a healthy democracy.

 

Posted Dec 23, '12 at 7:50pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,070 posts

Knight

Forcefully deporting political opponents is not the mark of a healthy democracy.

Agreed, regardless as to whether said proponent is a citizen or not.

People want to deport Morgan on the grounds that he is a foreigner, and the 1st amendment doesn't apply to him. Wouldn't it be hilarious if Piers became an American citizen? Not only would he not be deported, but he would be allowed to vote. : D

 

Posted Dec 23, '12 at 10:18pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,881 posts

Knight

What a sneaky way to prevent any discussion about the Second Amendment that doesn't fall in with the rank and file. I personally disagree with the Second Amendment, and the idea that the Constitution is infallible as an organic whole, but there are laws that are rather untouchable, and the right to free speech is.

The only problem I have with Piers Morgan
Is
That
He
Is
A
Crap
Arsenal
Fan.

 

Posted Dec 23, '12 at 10:19pm

wontgetmycatnip

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

People want to deport Morgan on the grounds that he is a foreigner, and the 1st amendment doesn't apply to him. Wouldn't it be hilarious if Piers became an American citizen? Not only would he not be deported, but he would be allowed to vote. : D

Except that Piers is here legally, so the fist amendment does apply to him. (He hasn't broken any law that can be legally enforced either.)

Here's the wording of the petition:

British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

 

Posted Dec 23, '12 at 11:06pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,070 posts

Knight

Except that Piers is here legally, so the fist amendment does apply to him. (He hasn't broken any law that can be legally enforced either.)

Whether he's here legally or not, he's still a foreigner. I'm just telling you the reasons people are using against him.

What a sneaky way to prevent any discussion about the Second Amendment that doesn't fall in with the rank and file. I personally disagree with the Second Amendment, and the idea that the Constitution is infallible as an organic whole, but there are laws that are rather untouchable, and the right to free speech is.

One of the two people I am subscribed to explained that he doesn't see the Constitution as infallible, and that certain "corrupting influences" should be censored since they have the potential to grow and eventually lead to the loss of rights.

So far, his arguments are the most consistent, but he still never gave me an answer as to who the authority would be to determine which influences are corrupt and which ones aren't.

I've never spent so much time debating on anything, especially YouTube comments. 8 hours... *head keyboard*

 

Posted Dec 23, '12 at 11:10pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,881 posts

Knight

So far, his arguments are the most consistent, but he still never gave me an answer as to who the authority would be to determine which influences are corrupt and which ones aren't.

Referendums seem the most fair, but least reliable, given the prospect of non-voting, apathy, and the host of problems that march with the banner of democracy.

Politicians and officials essentially decided the fate of the Constitution, so I can't fathom why a combination of that and voting shouldn't be considered.

especially YouTube comments. 8 hours...

Meh, 4 days.

 

Posted Dec 23, '12 at 11:46pm

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,070 posts

Knight

I just needed to vent. I never dreamed I would find myself defending freedom of speech from other libertarians. Regardless as to whether foreigners are protected by the constitution or not.

I've had people suggest that any person who tells others that they should repeal the 2nd amendment are terrorists or some other form of threat.

http://i45.tinypic.com/6fnvwm.jpg

Luckily these people don't speak for all libertarians. Had they made such comments under a video posted by Reason, they would have been flooded with objections.

Just so everyone else is clear, this thread isn't here to support or oppose libertarian ideology. I'm just pointing out how some so-called libertarians support censorship, and how such support completely clashes with libertarian ideology.

Could you even call someone who supports the censorship of Morgan Piers a libertarian, or does such support pretty much prevent you from leaving  the conservative realm? Not to get too deep into labels since I'm sure we could go on for pages talking about them. XD

Meh, 4 days.

Straight?

Within 8 hours, 85 comments.

 

Posted Dec 23, '12 at 11:57pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,881 posts

Knight

Straight?

Within 8 hours, 85 comments.

2-3 hours daily. Over some immensely time wasting and petty squabbles over whether Napoleon has a tarnished or glorious legacy.

Could you even call someone who supports the censorship of Morgan Piers a libertarian, or does such support pretty much prevent you from leaving  the conservative realm? Not to get too deep into labels since I'm sure we could go on for pages talking about them. XD

I don't think most people in their right minds would oppose freedom of speech in America. Curtail it and clip its wings to a certain extent when it brooches on select topics maybe, but not overall.

Meh, labels. They seem more like insult dog tags then labels now.

 

Posted Dec 24, '12 at 12:45am

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

No. No. No. No.No!
We would Piers Morgan to stay in the USA, please.

 
Reply to Petition To Deport Piers Morgan; "Libertarian" Debate

You must be logged in to post a reply!