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.
Things likethis give me faith in the eminent sensibleness of my fellow islanders. Duly signed by yours truly.
I saw the new petition. It's more pathetically written than the one I brought up. It's a petition to "shove it in American's faces". This petition will only flare the amount of stereotyping done between Americans and Europeans.
Obviously this is a generalisation. I can see plenty of Americans on here defending him and hats off to you. But I think it is rather odd how quickly the American right wing in particular cherry pick the constitution as and when it suits them.
This is the point where I should be arguing against you, pointing out that libertarians, whom are right wing, don't cherry pick the constitution to push their own personal agenda. But, these people on YouTube proved me wrong. Any libertarians who wants to deport Morgan is no longer a brother in ideology with me, since freedom of speech is one of the most sacred things we should strive to protect.
Many people have pointed out that the constitution doesn't protect foreigners. Fine, I'll give these people that, but we should STILL protect Morgan's right to speech. Our founding fathers wrote the constitution knowing that people need to be protected FROM the government when they challenge government action, laws, and ideas. Our founders knew that even the constitution might need changed one day (Article 5 is evidence of this).
The idea is that non-citizens shouldn't have a say when it comes to American policies, which is true at some levels. For example, I believe non-citizens shouldn't be able to vote or run for office. However, I believe non-citizens should be allowed to speak freely because they aren't directly voting on laws or politicians, they're convincing citizens to do so as well.
I detest censorship on the internet, because I believe it's important for us to share our ideas with others around the world. If I don't like something that's going on in Australia, I believe I should be allowed to talk to Australians and try to convince them to vote better people who won't censor video games. If I detest censoring the internet or T.V., then why would I support censoring someone just because they're on American soil? Morgan could broadcast his views from outside the country, and Libertarians (I would bloody **** hope) wouldn't support censorship of media just because it came from an outside source! To me, censoring Morgan, just because he's not a citizen, is just like censoring the internet.
So far, two people tried to use an analogy suggesting what I would do if someone came into my home and started to belittle the way I run my household. The problem with this analogy is that it's too weak. A household is not a democracy, nor is it a republic. I can kick whomever I want from my house for whatever reason I want - or for no reason at all! If we ran the country the way we ran our households, we would be living in an autocracy, not a democratic-republic. This is why such analogy is too weak to be used. If you hear anyone compare America to a household, just repeat what I said.
I saw the new petition. It's more pathetically written than the one I brought up. It's a petition to "shove it in American's faces". This petition will only flare the amount of stereotyping done between Americans and Europeans.
I don't know where you're quoting the ''shove it in America's faces'' from. This is the total content of the actual petition:
''We want to keep Piers Morgan in the USA.
There are two very good reasons for this. Firstly, the first amendment.
Second and the more important point. No one in the UK wants him back.
Actually there is a third. It will be hilarious to see how loads of angry Americans react.''
The first point mirrors your stadpoint about the first amendment.
The second point is the true focus. To give a bit of context, Piers Morgan was found to authorise phone hacking and insider dealing when he was working for a tabloid newspaper, which is why none of us can stand him. Something I don't imagine you would sympathise with either.
As for the third point, any Americans who would be angered by this are precisely the ones who you would disagree with on the entire issue.
It probably could have been worded in a more diplomatic manner, but ultimately this is a classic example of the dry British humour we are so famous for. Please understand how ridiculous the original petition to kick Morgan out looks to us, and then see how using an ironic one of our own is merely our expression of disdain for the man, rather than all Americans. (Believe me, if you want to see real European anti Americanism, look at some quotes from Clemenceau or Churchill. They really don't hold back with the zingers.) Furthermore, the only Americans who should be angry about this counter petition are precisely the ones you yourself take issue with. So I just don't undersand your acute dislike for it.
Any libertarians who wants to deport Morgan is no longer a brother in ideology with me, since freedom of speech is one of the most sacred things we should strive to protect.
I think the main problem is the great distance that exists between a true understanding of the original philosophy behind libertarianism and the poor grasp of so many grassroot supporters who label themselves as such. Note that as a leftie this is something I despise too. In fact I'd go as far as to say that it is poisoning real debate on a number of important issues here in the UK, although that's another story for another time.
The second point is the true focus. To give a bit of context, Piers Morgan was found to authorise phone hacking and insider dealing when he was working for a tabloid newspaper, which is why none of us can stand him. Something I don't imagine you would sympathise with either.
This begs a question, why are people signing a bogus petition to deport Piers Morgan? Shouldn't they have written a petition to CNN stating that Piers Morgan should be fired for his invasive actions in the U.K.? At least that would make sense, because it would be a petition to use negotiation rather than government force, and it wouldn't involve stomping on non-citizen rights.
Everyone keeps yelling the words "SUBVERSION!" and "SEDITION"! These two words are so vague that you can vilify ANYONE who has a political opinion you disagree with. The fact that Morgan is a foreigner allows people to strip him of his rights. People don't really care about freedom of speech, they just care that they themselves aren't censored.
To me, Morgan is being punished for having his feet planted in America while speaking against controls. That's the only thing he's guilty of, being a non-citizen with opinions in American politics.
So I just don't undersand your acute dislike for it.
As you said, it could have been more diplomatic. I just believe that's what it should have been. As redicilous as the first petition was, the second petition should have been worded in a much more diplomatic manner as to avoid what looks like a juvenile fight. Granted, I understand that the petition is taking a juvenile approach as a means of pointing out the ridiculousness of the original petition, but, I just don't think it's appropriate.
This begs a question, why are people signing a bogus petition to deport Piers Morgan? Shouldn't they have written a petition to CNN stating that Piers Morgan should be fired for his invasive actions in the U.K.?
Yes, they probably should. But I doubt most Americans even know about his sordid behaviour in the UK. I cannot imagine the members of the public that signed this petition have much to say about journalistic integrity. Rather they are pissed off with what they perceive as a foreigner crapping on their beloved constitution.
It's juvenile and insulting. Even if there will be Angry Americans as a result of this petition, or the decision to keep Morgan in the U.S., it's not necessary to have it in the petition.
I will agree it's unnecessary and perhaps a little juvenile, but ultimately this petition is a joke for us Brits and not to be taken too seriously. Secondly, I really can't see how it is in any way insulting. It doesn't say that Americans are angry, it just says the ones who react angrily will be funny. I can't really argue with this, as the thought of some brain dead 'libertarians' getting annoyed by the counter petition is rather amusing.
You have to understand, especially when it comes to politics, Brits have always preferred to use laughter as a weapon than bland critical thinking. It would be very uncharacteristic to have written a petition detailing the logical arguments as to why the original was so ridiculous. Laughing at how stupid the whole thing was is indeed typical and this is merely an attempt to show up how over the top it all is.
In any case it's the original overreaction by these Americans which has provoked this entire episode, so they deserved to be taken the piss out off. Maybe then they will be able to see how unreasonable they are being if people are laughing at their unjustified outrage.
As a Gooner, and hence, always exposed to Pier's lovely mud slings and journalistic humbugs, that counter petition is almost quite obviously, a complete gaffe and joke. Who could actually take it as a serious insult?
