Articles are available for reprint as long as the author is acknowledged: Domenick J. Maglio Ph.D.

Thursday, January 24, 2013


By Domenick Maglio, Phd., Traditional Realist

Americans have always prided themselves with living in a nation where you can freely speak your mind. Freedom of speech is such a core value in our nation that the First Amendment of our Constitution protects it.

Almost all segments of our society seem to want to telecast all sorts of personal information about their daily lives. Social networks such as Facebook, Google + and Twitter give anyone a venue to share anything they want with anyone who is willing to listen. Norte Dame’s Manti Te’o had an imaginary girlfriend, which he shared with the world. The media was a non-verifying accomplice to this compelling though false story.

Bumper stickers, T-shirt messages and tattoos put a person's likes and dislikes on public display, which is often more than innocent bystanders should have to endure. The more freaky and immoral messages are considered chic and cool. The more outrageous the printed speech, the more attention it receives by others and the media.

Yet we have entered a period where a person expressing a long held traditional belief like marriage is between a man and a woman can now be defined a "hate crime" by a small well-organized segment of society. The elite media treats certain subjects as taboo. It throws its full support and power of the word to define whatever they see fit as an intolerable hate crime. Anyone who questions whatever they declare, according to these “tolerant progressives” is a hate monger.

Chick-Fil-et CEO, John Cathy, made a Biblical reference that marriage was indeed between a man and a woman to a Christian newspaper and was crucified by many in the media. He was supposedly degrading and vilifying homosexuality. His statement was interpreted as a coded message of hate against the gay community but he was the one who received a direct attack on his character.

Strong personal convictions do not make a person intolerant. Every person has a right to his values and the expression of them under the First Amendment.

Even when a well-reasoned, cogent argument against a policy of President Obama is given instead of the merits and deficiencies of it being discussed, the discussion is dismissed as a racial attack on our president. We are not having a free, open and civil discussion to better understand each other's point of view. We are attacking and obliterating the messenger.

Refusing honest debate by making unsubstantiated allegations is becoming commonplace.  A politician or media personality can make any claim without an iota of evidence. It becomes the responsibility of the accused person to prove his innocence.

The new rule has become “you are guilty until proven innocent.” This can be seen with new laws such as sex abuse and domestic violence laws on the state level.  Innocent people have to spend enormous amounts of time, energy and money attempting to find out the specific evidence supposedly linking them to an often-fabricated incident meant to harm them. The accused is guilty regardless of the truth of the accusation until he proves otherwise.

Senator Majority leader, Harry Reid, publicly stated that he heard from an unnamed source that Romney did not file income taxes for 10 years. Senator Reid then had the audacity to tell the people of the USA that it was up to Mr. Romney to produce the proof of 10 years of income tax filings or it would be presumed he did not file. This means all unsubstantiated rumors would become facts if the individual did not disprove them. This is turning due process on its head.

The non-violent Tea Party movement was classified by Homeland Security as a domestic terrorist organization. Although the organization's consistent message has been limited government, reduction of national debt and more responsive representatives in doing what they say. There has not been one legitimate incident of violence connected with the Tea Party movement. If this is a terrorist agenda, it is the same one our founding fathers died for.

In the 1960 anti establishment movement, participants burned flags, mocked every institution and destroyed property under the guise of free speech. They were protected under the First Amendment. Now that some of these same people have risen to power, they are ironically proponents of a strong central government curtailing the First Amendment protections. They argue for ethnic and color diversity while insisting on Politically Correct conformity of thought.

Truth still does matter. Only by allowing citizens the ability to freely speak can a free marketplace of ideas exist.  Slander with blatant lies and rumors will still exist but will be exposed and cleansed by open, civil debate. The vitality of our republic depends on a free people speaking openly.

This process will lead to the flourishing of systematic indoctrination resulting in full-blown totalitarianism. Limiting and eventually crushing conditions for people to be sufficiently comfortable to express themselves will allow and encourage a repressive central government.

Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at  drmaglioblogspot


Post a Comment

<< Home