ForumsWEPRPetition To Deport Piers Morgan; "Libertarian" Debate

37 3984
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,081 posts
1,705

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.
  • 37 Replies
Showing 46-45 of 37