Who needs the First Ammendment Anyway?

I was amused by a story I read on AOL News earlier today. The headline read: "Obama 'Joker' Picture Pops Up In Los Angeles and Across the Internet." Now, as a political conservative and someone who has questioned many things that our president has done, I found that intriguing. So, I clicked on the link and read the short story.

It seems someone has depicted President Obama as The Joker (a la Heath Ledger) with the word "socialism" at the bottom and posted it around Los Angeles and on the internet. Predictably, liberals are in an uproar over the image, with many calling for an investigation as to the identity of the "mystery" artist. (Just a suggestion, I'd look for that guy who got sued over the "Hope" image....)


The writer of the AOL article, Christopher Weber from PoliticsDaily.com, correctly pointed out that the same liberals were noticably silent when someone posted a picture depicting then-president George W. Bush as Satan.

Upon further investigation on the web, I have found many outspoken liberals (in chat rooms and blog posts everywhere) who are calling for the image to be banned from the internet and the artist to be punished. Our Constitution is an interesting double-edged sword. We cannot apply the first ammendment only when we like the message that is being presented.

Several years ago an artist placed a picture of a crucifix into a bottle of urine, took a photiograph of it, and called it art (actually, he called it "Piss Christ"). It was even subsidized by our federally funded "National Endowment for the Arts." Conservatives and Christians all across the nation were outraged and wanted the artwork banned, even though the artist claimed it depicted what we as a society have done to Jesus. It was the artist's first ammendment right to produce such artwork (although I don't believe it's the kind of artwork the NEA should be paying to help produce), even though it was disgusting, disturbing and insulting to many Americans.

The first ammendment can be a pesky thing: either ALL speech is protected, or none of it is. We conservatives got really tired of hearing the character of President and Laura Bush attacked by lilberals on the web and in public. But no one I personally know called for censorship of the internet because of the negative and often vitriolic language. Unfortunately, now liberals are going to have to put up with the same kind of stuff.

Personally, I believe it's in bad taste either way. I think we should be able to question our leaders and even expose their actions in public. We can write and blog and cry "foul" from the rooftops if that is what we deem necessary. I would prefer the attacks to be kept in the political arena and steer clear of a politician's family and private life. But just because I don't like what is being said, I can't call for it to be hidden or the "offenders" to be arrested or fined or both. That's what our first ammendment guarantees: the right to say what we want about our nation's leadership without fearing arrest or retribution from the government.

I think that liberals are going to have to thicken their collective skin for the next three and a half years. There are going to be PLENTY more attacks against President Obama where this one came from. It's going to be a LOOOOOONG time until the next presidential election, and I don't think things are going to get more "civil" between now and then....


References:
PoliticsDaily article on Obama/Joker Poster
DailyMail (UK) article on Obama/Joker Poster
LA Weekly article on Obama/Joker Poster
Piss Christ artwork