America Must Support Idiots Who Burn the Koran, not Punish Them

I saw the below article and I couldn't help feel a cold shiver run down my spine as I am reminded of how easily and subtly political dissenters can be silenced by simple actions, even in free societies like America where political dissent and diversity of opinion should be protected like delicate glass. In America, we are still a long way from seeing Castro-esque kidnapping and torture of political dissenters but Lenin-esque carting off of the opposition to the Gulag isn't the only way to silence the opposition. You can, for example, outlaw political advertisements close to election time (which has already been done in America) or you can make it harder for one group to get their message out and make it easier for their opposition to get their message out, which is what the town of Gainsville, Fl. is trying to do.

City plans to bill pastor for security around planned Quran burning

By paying for security for the in-group and taxing the out-group, the government there is, in fact, subsidizing the political in-group and adding financial burdens to political dissenters which clearly oppresses free speech and political dissent while favoring those who will agree with the administration. How can liberalism flourish in such an environment where liberalism is actively taxed and preserving the status quo is punished? We must keep in mind that the politically status quo isn't always for the good, and history is full of examples in which governments were wrong and political dissent was necessary to bring liberalism to bear. Jim Crow Laws, Tea Taxes, NAZI policies, are all examples of political ideas that were politically and socially popular and represented the status-quo yet few people in America defend the established power holders' defense of those policies and persecution of dissenters and consider the power holders to be the worst kind of authoritarians. Most Americans agree that the NAZI's, the British Crown and the southern governments that preserved these policies and persecuted the unpopular dissenters were the worst form of Authoritarians bent on destroying freedom and liberalism.

Yet many Americans will foolishly celebrate government persecution of Pastor Jones, smugly claiming liberal values while supporting authoritarianism by agreeing with the removal of a dissenters right to equal treatment.

Although I do think Jones is an ass, he has the right to equal treatment by the government. The decision of the town leaders in Gainesville, Fl. raises a bigger question of equal treatment under the law and the right of Americans who are politically or socially unpopular to political and social dissent under the same conditions as those with more political or social unpopularity. This so-called "bill" they want to hand Jones is basically a form of punitive taxation imposed on a person who is unpopular (which even the extreme leftists like Obama normally oppose, for example when Obama rightly opposed the populist idea of a special taxes on the executives of companies who received bailout monies but still got bonuses). Do municipalities usually bill for providing security for unpopular dissenters who are expected to be the subjects of violence?

I don't think Dr. MLK Jr got billed for police and National Guard security at his rallies and speeches. He was the subject of numerous death threats and was the subject of multiple assassination attempts. Rev. King was not billed, even though he was ran up multimillion dollar security expenses and was politically unpopular in many places. What's the difference? The difference is that King's position was popular with the federal government and most state governments. However some events during the Civil Rights Movement occurred in places where the movement was politically unpopular so local law enforcement couldn't be relied upon or simply refused to assist. In some extreme cases, local government blatantly obstructed federal initiatives and the federal government had to call on federal troops (US Army) to enforce the laws. In those cases the politically unpopular were left without protection and were only able to get help from the group that they were popular with.

Rightly, popular opinion and history itself have rightly condemned the local political elite for failing to provide equal protection under the law to the politically unpopular.

If we allow people to be "billed" like this, we are establishing a legal precedent that only people having political favor will get police protection and that political dissent in America means that you take your life in your own hands. Essentially this means, dissent, will be further oppressed in America reducing real political discourse in America. As it is, real political dissent in the U.S. is virtually non-existent but this action now makes it a matter of public policy. It also means that we have created even more "elites" in America, but not based on a person's productive ability (i.e. the "rich"), but based on political cronyism.

In the entire time Rev Al Sharpton has been on the public stage there has been only one thing he ever did that I agreed with. The KKK was planning a rally in the middle of NYC but the Giulliani administration refused to grant him the necessary permits to have a peaceful assembly, a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. It was Al Sharpton who publicly criticized the administration's refusal to grant the permit because he felt that the administration was refusing the permit because they opposed the Klan's ideology. In other words, a politically unpopular group was being refused the rights afforded to every other citizen. Sharpton himself is very politically unpopular among the administration so, in his mind, he runs the same risk of being refused equal treatment under the law. His reasoning was that, if he wanted to be able to continue to hold gatherings and get protection under the law, he had to defend the rights of ALL citizens to get the same protection under the law.

Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". In a free society all people should have the same rights and rights should not be restricted to those who can afford to pay for them. Yes, Terry Jones is a jerk who should be put to sleep, but, if we want to reserve the right for future political dissent to be possible, we need to preserve this "pastor"'s right to receive equal protection under the law. If we bill one person for security costs then we need to bill everyone for such expenses, regardless of their political or social unpopularity, or we further eliminate true political freedom in this country by silencing the minority.

Yes, Jones cost the town of Gainesville Florida $180,000 in security costs, but that is quite literally the price we pray for a free, liberal society. If we are unwilling to pay that price, then we must remain silent and accept when governments silence our own ideas if they ever become unpopular.