America: Stripped of freedom

A mighty blow was struck against freedom in America yesterday. It was a blow struck by none other than the U.S. Supreme Court–an institution, ironically, originally established to protect, defend, and promote liberty in the United States of America.

Instead, the United States Supreme Court has callously ruled in favor of undermining the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States–a sacred document it was sworn to uphold. The First Amendment plainly states, in part, that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .” But rather than uphold this crucial and cardinal right to free self-expression, the US Supreme Court has instead decided to drastically curtail it, for vague and patently unjustified reasons.

In a ruling that allows a local U.S. community to place severe restrictions on nude dancing, the court acknowledged that stripping merited “some First Amendment protection.” The court, however, eventually decided that local communities could legally force nude entertainers, artists, and professionals to limit their physical exposure by donning G-strings or other concealing garments.

In her concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor claimed that a local U.S. community had a legitimate “interest in combating ‘the negative secondary effects’ associated with adult entertainment establishments.” While it is unclear exactly what these ‘negative secondary effects’ refer to, others have been even more explicit, citing crime and immorality as possible justifications.

Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas, for example, advanced nude dancing censorship on the grounds of “the traditional power of government to foster good morals … and the acceptability of the traditional judgment … that nude public dancing itself is immoral.”

Such justifications are extremely alarming, for at least two key reasons. First, because there is no compelling evidence to prove that nude dancing causes crime or otherwise substantially endangers the safety of any local community in the United States. Second, we must remember that it is not the government’s proper function to dictate good morality to the people.

Big Brother has no right to impose the majority (or Judeo-Christian) view of morality upon all Americans. The Court has not proved that nude dancing is patently immoral; arguing that some communities believe it is immoral is not a compelling reason to restrict nude dancing. The law must not be fashioned by tradition or cultural relativity. Sound, logical and objective judicial criteria are desperately needed.

As for Justice ‘O Connor’s blanket assertion about secondary negative effects, even if it were true, one could still make the same fallacious argument about other sections of the constitution. Should we abolish the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) because it has ‘the negative secondary effect’ of contributing to suicide and criminal activity? Should we restrict the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) because it has ‘the negative secondary effect’ of allowing some criminals to go free? Should we also curtail the Fifth Amendment of the American Bill of Rights for the same ‘negative secondary effects’ (allowing the guilty to escape criminal conviction)? Or is liberty far more precious and important?

The US Supreme Court apparently does not think so. By ruling against the free speech and free self-expression clearly–and indisputably–represented by erotic nude dancing, the US Supreme Court has stripped yet another vital layer of individual rights from the sacred accouterments of lady liberty. (In due time, after all the layers have been peeled, she will eventually be raped by Big Brother.)