The Blackfire Protocol by Clifford Beck - HTML preview

Chapter 18

The days passed as Frank threw himself into the second week of the semester, with the most challenging class being ‘The First Amendment’. The idea of free speech is far more complex than he had

59

imagined. Studying the legal precedents as well as the amendments cross-referenced within the constitution, he began to discover that there are many things one cannot say. Free speech allows for only a few expressions, and when it came time to write his paper, he gave several examples of what the legal system calls ‘non-protected speech’. For instance, the First Amendment protects the individual from government censorship but does not apply to private citizens, businesses, or organizations. A private school may suspend or expel a student for criticizing their policy. In this case, free speech does not appear to be free. Examples of ‘protected speech’ include books, newspapers, and poetry. Symbolic speech would include the wearing of armbands or burning the flag. One might also use offensive language to convey a political message. Then there is the right not to speak, such as taking a knee during the National Anthem. Frank quickly learned that if the First Amendment was this complex, then certainly the constitution as a whole is far more complicated. But he enjoyed a challenge and looked forward to learning more about what some considered a sacred document. But in spite of his fascination with the cornerstone of American government, Frank also felt that the constitution was in desperate need of reconstruction and should reflect more specific regulation geared towards political control. Continuing to think of people as violent sheep, he believed that the legal system should adopt tighter constraints. In making a closer examination of the Second Amendment, for example, he saw the need for more specific language spelling out that state and

60

federal military personnel should possess the sole right to acquire and carry weapons. These same weapons should be kept out of the hands of private citizens. Granted, people will simply find other means of killing each other, but once a trigger is squeezed, there is no turning back. Presently, the Second Amendment states this, but he felt that its language was too vague, and an overhaul was needed for the public good as well as the maintenance of political control. People would find it far more difficult to rise up against the government if they were unarmed. In the United Kingdom, for example, the ownership of guns is not permitted. Therefore, the country has a tighter grip on crime. As a result, street police do not have to carry firearms, and they are far better trained in conflict resolution. However, in some parts of the United States, people in remote areas live not only by growing their own food but by hunting as well. Upon reflection, Frank arrived at the conclusion that if the use of firearms was needed for survival, then this should be permitted. But the only entity having the right to possess assault weapons should be the military and S.W.A.T. teams.

He also considered the concept of martial law, the subjecting of the masses to military control. This, he believed, should be used with a bit more leniency. Should a riot break out or a protest large enough to be a threat to local government take place, the state militia should always be called out to prevent violence or simply beat down those who would disrupt public life. And if this action also served to intimidate those who might plan to follow suit, then so much the better. But occasionally, keeping up

61

with the times, Frank was also becoming aware that the constitution was often and metaphorically used as political toilet paper and that the rights of American citizens were selectively being chipped away.

Certain amendments have also been seen to possess loopholes that stand in the way of adequately protecting the citizens' rights as they were meant to be. The Fourth Amendment especially caught his interest, as he saw it as representing one of the principal protections of American society. However, in his research, he found that some legal scholars recognized that the Supreme Court had narrowed the protection of this amendment such that police could now find a way to reach into someone's life without violating the amendment. The most effective example of this is the 'third party doctrine,' which states that whenever one shares information or any item with authorities, one forfeits any expectation of privacy with the party involved. In essence, if one is to have their fourth amendment rights respected, one should keep their mouth shut. In conducting his research, Frank also discovered ‘probable cause’. This, he believed, served as a legal loophole allowing authorities to enter one home without a warrant should they observe something that may constitute a public safety threat. A complaining neighbor could summon officers to quell a loud party, only to arrive to find silence and dark windows. Prompting their suspicions, the offices enter the property and begin looking through the windows. Should one of them see something that they believe to be out of the ordinary, they reserve

62

the right to forcibly enter the home. Should the object in question be the family dog, and should that dog react to their entry by running at the officers, they are within their rights to enact their training and shoot the dog. Responding to the chaos, the adults leap from bed and charge out, demanding an explanation. Once again, seeing the reaction as a potential threat, the homeowners are shot and killed by those who have lawfully entered their home for the sake of preserving public safety. Now, most of its occupants are dead. Any sane person would ask if public safety was truly protected by the killing of innocent people, but this is how the Fourth Amendment has been mutilated over time. Dogs can sniff your luggage, a police plane or helicopter can be flown over your home without violating the Fourth Amendment. These acts could be seen as screening, not searching. As far as Frank was concerned, the Fourth Amendment was not strict enough, believing that police should be able to enter a resident simply on the basis of distress. Hearing an argument should give authorities what they need to enter unannounced and should they see firearms or any fanatical literature confiscate them without a warrant. This would certainly be construed as a violation of the citizen’s fourth amendment rights, but Frank believed that people needed to be kept under control and, to some degree, monitored as often as possible. Should the needed funds become available, he would see to it that the city was blanketed in surveillance cameras, establishing a watchful eye on as many people as possible. He saw the legalities of the fourth amendment as it was meant to be rather useless, but also realized what it

63

took to ratify an amendment. Within the United States government, significant changes come slowly, if at all.