Let me rephrase that: I think our country and culture put too much emphasis on "freedom".
Why do I say that?
Well, we use freedom and in doing so offend others. Those who are offended have the freedom to express their dislike and then we have many conflicting opinions.
This basic concept may not seem to be much of a problem to most, but take this issue and multiply its severity and then it becomes ridiculous - it becomes a lawsuit.
For example, since I have freedom of religion, I can express my views. However, someone may not like that and may counter my views with their own. A lawsuit can happen depending on the time and place where my views were expressed and the roles each of us were in at the time (i.e. if I am at my work - me being the employee, the other person being the customer, etc).
People who don't like something can easily say "Hey I don't like that!" and sue for no good reason. I guess they do have reasons, but none of them are good reasons. Then again, this is my offensive opinion, so who knows, maybe someone will sue me over this blog entry!
This is getting on my nerves more and more lately as I've been thinking about it quite a bit.
The other day, I was at work and they were playing Christmas music. Of course, it was not religious Christmas music (songs about winter, Santa Clause and presents, etc) but it was still Christmas music nonetheless.
I happen to enjoy Christmas songs and decorations so I asked my (bitchy) boss Laura, "Hey Laura, do you think I can put a Christmas tree on my desk? You know, maybe just a small one about 6 inches high or so?"
She said, "Oh, well, let me think. We (the other managers) really haven't gotten together to discuss how we're going to decorate. I don't think it'd be a problem, but we'll have to see. It will be a group decision."
I wanted to scream.
It's. Just. A. Fucking. Tree!
Jesus, it takes a panel of fucking judges to decide whether or not it's okay for me to have a 6" tree on my desk at work! For the record, only I would be able to see the thing. Customers couldn't see it unless they were on my side of my desk and, for security reasons, that never happens. I'd basically be the only one enjoying my little tree which only *I* could see.
Why won't they let me have a tree?
Because it falls under the category of "decoration for the store" and my desk is technically part of "the store". Decorations for the store around Christmas time are for the most part prohibited. One very Christian manager of mine rebelled against this and put bright red bows around the place, oooooooo!! They are prohibited because of one fear on behalf of the company: lawsuits.
Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits... people are so lawsuit happy.
So much emphasis is put on our freedom of expression that we are now more focused on ANTI-expression, if that makes sense.
Let me see if I can explain it...
Anti expressionism is, in itself, expressionism!
We are so focused on "Hey your expressionism offends me" that our anti-expressionism has become our identity.
It's sort of like the video I saw the other day on Youtube entitled "Aggressive Atheism" which I thought was COMPLETELY retarded! Isn't Atheism the lack of belief in higher powers? To have an aggressive foundation of nothingness sounds so oxymoronic!
It's also sort of like the guy who bitched and moaned about "Under God" in our pledge of allegiance to our national flag. He stated it conflicted with separation of church and state and he didn't want his daughter exposed to that. Well, I will note that I actually LIKE the combination of church and state like European nations have, but whatever. Anyhow, I think that by having "under God" taken out actually tramples on my freedom of expression as well, you see. Here is the problem: I like it, he doesn't. Who is morally right in this war?
Duh, neither are "right" or "wrong". We all just have different opinions. However, people want to fucking sue over this dumb shit.
At my work, I can't tell someone "Merry Christmas" even if I see them sporting a freaking "I love Jesus!" tattoo on their forehead. Naturally, I've never seen a freak like that in my lifetime, but this is hypothetical of course. I can't wish people a Merry Christmas because of the lawsuit possibility. I can't say "God bless you" if someone sneezes because of the possibility of a lawsuit. Instead, I have to say "Happy Holidays" and "Bless you" (as if I'm Jesus!).
The other day, I was at a convention. A guy at a vendor booth wished someone a "merry Christmas" and the customer said, "Thank you for not being afraid to tell me Merry Christmas sir."
I went up to the vendor and began to speak with him on this topic.
"You know, I can't have a Christmas tree on my desk because of the lawsuit possibility at work," I told him.
"Well you know what you should do?" he asked. "You should put a little red devil on your desk and name it Mohammad and put an Arab headband on it and no one will say a thing!"
I was really shocked at how true this man's point was.
By God, he's right!
I can put a fucking SATAN doll on my desk and no one will complain. After all, I have "freedom of expression" even if I am a satanic bastard.
However, if I put a baby Jesus, a star of David, or a little golden Buddha on my desk, that would be offensive!
If I am more among the minority of religions, however, I am given the right to expression and even defended in my right to be...oh, I don't know, a wiccan for example maybe? My minority views and opinions are seen as something I have the freedom to express or else I could complain they were taking away my "freedom".
If I'm a Christian, however, I must watch my back because some idiot will say I'm offending them.
If you're not a Christian, that's fine an dandy, I don't CARE! Whatever!
A guy at work said the other day that last year they wouldn't let them decorate and I just said that was no surprise. I was a bit shocked to learn that his only request was for fake snow by the customer service counter. FAKE SNOW! Holy crap people, I don't think people are going to sue over artificial weather inside the store! Get the fuck over it. My GM is just so damned afraid of us being sued.
People sue over dumb shit.
People sue for money, mostly. However, some sue for other reasons: attention/publicity, to prove a point or perhaps just to be an asshole. Rarely is it actually over an injustice these days.
Our legal system is retarded too in how we try to find loops holes and read between lines. Recently, a new case came up in Florida where they are asking for the Miranda rights to be rewritten. Now, if you don't know the origins of the Miranda rights, I'll give a brief history lesson courtesy of this webpage.
Miranda v. Arizona
The case that brought about the eventual Miranda rights ruling, involved Ernesto Miranda of Phoenix, Arizona. In 1963, Miranda was arrested for the armed robbery of a bank worker. While in custody of police, Miranda -- who had a record for armed robbery, attempted rape, assault and burglary -- signed a written confession to the armed robbery. He also confessed to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old girl 11 days prior to the robbery.
Miranda was convicted of the armed robbery, but his attorneys appealed the case on the grounds that Miranda did not understand that he had the right against self-incrimination.
Ironic End for Miranda
At age 34, Ernesto Miranda was stabbed and killed in a 1976 bar fight. A suspect was arrested in Miranda's stabbing, but exercised his right to remain silent.
He was released without being charged.
This bastard was guilty, but his lawyers insisted "our client didn't know he could remain silent and not confess". Well, since he was guilty of the crime, his "right to remain" silent can eat shit.
of course I like that we have the right to not self-incriminate, but STILL...STILL....the Miranda rights' origins are actually pretty shitty! The rights themselves are good (they're derived from the Constitution obviously) but their origin from this case in Arizona actually sucks!
__________________________________________________________
And so enters this news story that I read recently:
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer – Mon Dec 7, 4:59 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday seemed headed toward telling police they must explicitly advise criminal suspects that their lawyer can be present during any interrogation.
The arguments in front of the justices were the latest over how explicit the Miranda warning rights have to be, as justices debated whether the warnings police gave Kevin Dwayne Powell made clear to him that he could have a lawyer present while being interrogated by police.
Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."
The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn't adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.
Joseph W. Jacquot, Florida deputy attorney general, argued that the warning given Powell "expresses all the rights required under Miranda."
Justice Stephen Breyer clearly disagreed.
"Aren't you supposed to tell this person, that unlike a grand jury, you have a right to have the lawyer with you during interrogation?" Breyer said. "I mean, it isn't as if that was said in passing in Miranda. They wrote eight paragraphs about it. And I just wonder, where does it say in this warning, you have the right to have the lawyer with you during the interrogation?"
Different courts have came down on different sides on what exactly should be said, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
"We've got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not. Shouldn't that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can't reasonably convey, if there's this many courts holding that it doesn't?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
Powell's lawyer, Deborah K. Brueckheimer, said that the warning Powell was given from Tampa, Fla., police gave him the impression that "once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn't tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning."
Justice Scalia called Brueckheimer's argument "angels dancing on the head of a pin."
"You are saying, 'Oh, if he had only known. Oh, if I knew that I could have an attorney present during the interview, well, that would have been a different kettle of fish and I would never have confessed,'" Scalia said. "I mean, doesn't that seem to you quite fantastic?"
Miranda rights have been litigated since they first came into being in 1966. The courts require police to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one. But those requirements likely will continue to be parsed by lawyers and judges.
For example, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that most police start off Miranda rights by saying "You have the right to remain silent." But, Alito said, what happens if someone begins talking to the police and then decides that they want to be silent?
"Once you break your silence, there is nothing in there that says you have the right to resume your silence," Alito said.
"We could write that down. It could be the next case," Justice Anthony Kennedy said to laughter.
This is the third Miranda case the court has heard this year. The justices heard arguments earlier over whether officers can interrogate a suspect who said he understood his rights but didn't invoke them, and whether a request for a lawyer during interrogation can expire after a lengthy period of time.
Decisions in all three cases are expected next year.
The case argued Monday is Florida v. Powell, 08-1175.
_____________________________________________________
Now, this article displays our stupidity. Asshole criminals and their asshole lawyers look for little loopholes like these. Little nitpicks and technicalities let our criminals walk all too often because a judge agrees, "Well, you know, technically you're right...it really DOESN'T state that little common sense thought which I know you truly understood. You're dismissed because I don't have proof you understood it correctly." We cater to stupidity! If our criminals are too stupid to understand something, they still broke the law nonetheless and that is their shortcoming, not the law's.
The worst line in this article which proves what I just said?
This:
"Once you break your silence, there is nothing in there that says you have the right to resume your silence," Alito said.
Well....no fucking shit asshole.
Do we really NEED to say "Hey you can start or stop talking at any time, it's up to you entirely. Just know that if you do say something, it just might make you look guilty and I might bring that up to the judge if you confess to doing some criminal shit so bear that in mind as I encourage you to slip through the fingers of our legal system"
Looking for little nitpicks and shit only displays how freedom on steroids is a bad idea. Lawsuit happy people should all be put into a room with these same criminals who have slipped through our fingers and I'll simply blow them all up with dynamite.
THERE.
Problem solved.
No comments:
Post a Comment