“If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so” - Thomas Jefferson.
I share a first name with that critic of Masons, and wholly align with his ideologies, nisi credo in Deum.
Probably exposing too much for the OSINT machine that is the internet, but the dad I knew as a child was a Vietnam vet. And, he was pretty pissed off more often than not about infringement on freedoms (as the US populace claims to have; had).
And, now, I'm pretty goddamn pissed off with the infringements on privacy, taxation without representation, and the actions our federal government has taken.
I also take grievance with one specific thing you wrote, MW.
The UK is one of the most surveilled countries in the world, but throwing shade at them while not mentioning the fact our local law enforcement procured Flock cameras, and positioned them at every ingress and egress point into and out of Chehalis and Centralia is kind of calling the kettle black, no?
You can’t throw shade without looking in your own back yard.
Starting an essay with a binary "one side or the other," 0 or 1, does something subtle, psychologically, to your audience. It puts the reader on defense, makes them ask "am I that side? or the other?" That’s not what “on the level” teaches us, at all.
Obviously You're not my audience for grievances against the Flock cameras (I know exactly who I need to talk to about those), and I deeply respect you. However, I cannot sit idle and not speak; I expect you expect nothing less from me, personally.
So, maybe freedom is the ability to move without being watched, without intrusion into our most intimate details, and to speak freely without material consequence from the government as defined by the Constitution of the United States. Key word in there.
I have certainly considered the fact that as I travel through my little City here, the government is keeping track of my movements. They know when I go, and where I go. I agree, that is a very significant abridgement of my privacy.
Someday I might feel compelled to write about this system.
But, I would argue that 100% of the shade thrown at the UK in this post was in regards to that nation's current abridgement of the freedom of speech, not its use of surveillance cameras. I would argue that while freedom of speech is under attack here in the US, the situation facing that specific freedom in the UK is much worse than here.
And, in my mind, the UK is important for me to write about for a couple of reasons. First, because it is one of the primary places that American ideas about Freedom of Speech came from. Americans didn't conjure these ideas out of thin air, they built on earlier ideas prevalent in the 'old world,' including, England. Secondly, because I'm English by heritage. Emotionally, what happens there is important to me. Perhaps on a practical level it is of little importance, but I do hate to see the ancestral home lose essential freedoms.
I find It very interesting how you invoke the flock cameras. This Has been a quandary of mine for some time. I have my reasons for disliking them and have disliked them and tried to beat the drum since The moment inslee pushed them in the state during covid and all the city councils approved them funded by the state. What I was "nuts" about then in some circles. Now it seems the tide has switched.I still can't stand them , but now , people of the opposite political persuasion of me are just clamoring at how bad they are. I find it a very interesting topic that that is something that we have a commonality in between both sides.
There were lots of people that saw them as a safety net, and they found them comforting. I find with most all safety nets and things that seem comfortable. They come at a cost of loss of freedom and free will. We are seeing this in real time right now just how double edged they are.
So that being illustrated in stupid cameras. Yes the gard rails of proceting emotions with the governance of free speech is like putting the bumpers down at a bowling alley. I don't care who or what party it is, its wrong you will never be a better bowler without a few gutter balls. I fear we will lose morality if we try and do it through legislation. It will be a downward spiral for society to lose the experience of finding the balance of the emotional vs dispassionate ballance or the safty vs freedom ballance.
The argument we hear in my little City in favor of them is that they result in bad guys being caught. Primarily I think auto theft guys. And surely they do. But, at what cost? And has the perceived cost increased dramatically once we learned that not only can our local police access them, but a broad range of alphabet feds too? And increased again now that the photos are considered public documents, available for any requestor?
I imagine that as you point out, both sides seem highly critical of them now, we won't see much in the way of their further expansion. But, I don't imagine that we'll see much contraction of the current numbers.
It seems that whenever a new control is put into place, it never goes away.
Thanks for your excellent message. Hopefully, our rights of free speech will be maintained? I see opinions stated on Facebook, that might get folks sent to a Sears Fence Cell at Guantanamo Detention Facility (if one administration has their way).
The NY Army Nat'l Guard flew me to a residence course in Race Relations Equal Opportunity Institute at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. As a Certified Counselor Instructor of Equal Opportunity at an Engineer Battalion HQ in Buffalo NY for 2 years, I firmly believe in Equal Opportunity in our US Military. The recent removal of Sr. Generals & Admirals because they were Black and/ or Female disturbs me. Current rights to speak freely in public (like old days on a soap box in the town park), need to be maintained?
This post was actually born of my frustration of things I've been seeing on Facebook. It seems from what I encounter there that a lot of people have adopted a really partisan view of this essential freedom.
That if it is their preferred political party that is attempting to abridge Freedom of Speech or of the Press, that it is somehow OK, and that it is only wrong if the other party is doing it. I see these views pushed by folks from both ends of the political spectrum.
But of course essential freedoms can't be subject to partisanship like that if they are to survive. We have to protect liberty for everyone, or we will lose it for all.
I agree completely, AND, the one big thing that is different between now and the days of Adams and Jefferson, is that there is absolutely no rein on speech today. Oh, sorry MWB, you ask "what was the rein on speech in that time?"
Why Code Duello, of course.
The knowledge that speech found TOO offensive might just end in a meeting at dawn by the "Dueling oak" has a certain calming effect not currently existent by the threat of a law suit.
I'm reading about Burr and Hamilton now, and before that it was Jackson. All three quite familiar with dueling of course.
While I can't imagine a return to dueling, when reading about such things I am struck by how highly men regarded their personal honor in the past, and how cheaply some men will throw personal honor away today.
This is a great topic, and MW brings up several good points, as do the commentors. I'll just add a couple of thoughts.
One, social media, IMHO, would be much more civil if commentors were required to use their real names. It subtly forces one to think before throwing a bomb into the discussion.
Second, under Citizens United, corporations are considered people and can offer all the speech their assets can afford and Board direct. As I see it, the slick ads overwhelm whatever discussion the regular citizenry can possibly offer and is truly pernicious in undermining our principle of one man one vote.
Still basking in the Seahawk victory - let's repeat at SoFi next year!
Yesterday someone posted a comment on some post I'd shared over on Facebook. Had I seen the comment as just an opinion from a guy, I wouldn't have thought anything of it. It was hyper partisan and a bit uncivil, but certainly not the worst thing one sees on that platform.
But, I couldn't see it that way.
Because as his profile picture, he used one of the most recognizable of all Masonic symbols. That symbol appeared right next to his comment. By making that choice, he allowed his hyper partisanship and incivility be associated with our Craft, and to my mind that is just plain wrong.
So, I deleted his comment from the post I had shared.
Had he not so clearly tied Freemasonry with his comment I would have let it go without a second thought.
Voltaire's biographer stated "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and this is something that I was raised on even if something is vile or something is blatantly untrue, I believe someone has the right to rant or state what they would feel as their opinion, their relationship between them and their deity is is between them, what they spew or eloquently proclaim in public you have to simply take as their right to be free in speech, even if you disagree with it or internally question their intelligence and their value to society.
Inside the head is where we think the impure thoughts, the thoughts that we hope no telepath will ever pull from our skulls.
Even if I fragrantly disagree with someone as long as they are not demonstrating or protesting in a violent manner but simply speaking, I feel they have a right to say this ironically I know many people would disagree with me.
Famously we are only three meals and 24 hours away from barbarism, this freedom of speech allows rational and objective behaviour to endure even when someone is not so doing their passions and explicitly demonstrating their freedom of speech. But freedom of speech can still have consequences especially depending on where you exercise this freedom it’s always good to read the room knowing your audience and knowing what kind of reaction you might gain the law often cannot protect you except in the abstract.
I'm generally good with Freedom of Sports when it comes to football. 🤠 The only teams I can't abide are those which move from place to place, showing no regard for their fans. And of course I must give Mrs. Bailey's relatives, all of whom seem to be Cowboys fans, never ending grief.
I personally believe that we need to hear from, and read people whom we disagree with, even strongly disagree with. By doing so we hone our own thoughts. If we instead create silos where we only hear from or read those whom we are in agreement with, we will tend to stop thinking, which of course weakens our ability to think over time.
Couldn’t agree more although I like the Cowboys so it’s fun to watch the sea chickens fans freak out when you say stuff like that but like you said I think it’s highly important that we spend time with people that think completely opposite of us so as to encourage rational debate and genuine appreciation for other peoples points of view
I will say that my best encounter with the Cowboys was when our oldest daughter graduated from doctorin' school. They had a fancy reception in the owners box in that huge stadium. I might have stolen a pack or two of Cowboy cocktail napkins!
First, a quick observation from down here in Arkansas: We actually don’t have a flag retirement ceremony in our work, so seeing that quote from the Grand Lodge of Washington was a fascinating glimpse into how other jurisdictions operate.
I also deeply appreciated the history lesson regarding the Adams and Jefferson era. It is a powerful reminder that while the tools of division change, the danger of "spiraling always downward" into tyranny is nothing new.
In fact, I just finished reading an essay from *The Common Sense Papers* regarding a "Digital Bill of Rights." It argues that if we want a society "Centered on Citizens in Pursuit of Happiness," we must protect our rights in the digital space just as fiercely as in the physical one.
It strikes me that the "vicious circle" you describe, where one side cheers on restrictions until the political winds shift, is even more dangerous now. If we allow the erosion of free speech today, we aren't just handing the "other side" a precedent. We are handing them a digital infrastructure capable of automated censorship and synthetic manipulation that Adams and Jefferson could never have imagined.
As Masons, standing for "the rights of free men" likely means we must now be vigilant not just against government overreach, but against the "invisible architectures" of the digital age that threaten to silence unpopular views before they are even spoken.
It isn't considered a part of our secret Work, so I'm pleased to give it to you in its entirety:
"Brethren, in the presence of the Great Lights and under the protecting folds of the Flag of Our Country, we have worked, as Masons, for the good of humanity. As the Flag is retired let us stand at salute in tribute to the emblem of the Nation that guarantees to its citizens the rights of free assembly, free speech, free worship – The rights of free men and of Freemasons."
It is also considered optional work. Although it is almost always given in my experience.
When I've been in the East as WM I generally include it, but not always. I don't if I am worried about whomever might be serving as Marshal losing their balance on the stairs in the east while carrying the flag. I'd hate to see one of our elder Masons go tumbling down the stairs.
>>>We are handing them a digital infrastructure capable of automated censorship and >>>synthetic manipulation
I'm glad you mentioned this, because it is something I have really wondered about in recent years.
My understanding, when the internet was first being adopted by regular people, way back in dial up days, that it had been created as an extremely robust communications system, capable of surviving the most devastating of wartime attacks. That it was thought that the packets of information would always find a way through.
But now, in places like Iran and other totalitarian states we see the government somehow being able to 'turn off' the internet, or 'turn off' certain websites and platforms. Clearly I don't understand the technology, for I can't understand how these capabilities exist. Particularly with satellite providers and the like where it would seem that none of the infrastructure needs to be located within the country in question.
>>>we must now be vigilant not just against government overreach, but against the "invisible >>>architectures" of the digital age that threaten to silence unpopular views before they are >>>even spoken.
Agreed, 100%. We've allowed technology companies to become so large, and we've become so dependent upon them that they are a massive threat as well. I think we saw this pretty clearly during COVID when they shut down anything outside of the preferred narrative.
“If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so” - Thomas Jefferson.
I share a first name with that critic of Masons, and wholly align with his ideologies, nisi credo in Deum.
Probably exposing too much for the OSINT machine that is the internet, but the dad I knew as a child was a Vietnam vet. And, he was pretty pissed off more often than not about infringement on freedoms (as the US populace claims to have; had).
And, now, I'm pretty goddamn pissed off with the infringements on privacy, taxation without representation, and the actions our federal government has taken.
I also take grievance with one specific thing you wrote, MW.
The UK is one of the most surveilled countries in the world, but throwing shade at them while not mentioning the fact our local law enforcement procured Flock cameras, and positioned them at every ingress and egress point into and out of Chehalis and Centralia is kind of calling the kettle black, no?
You can’t throw shade without looking in your own back yard.
https://deflock.org/map#map=14/46.653084/-122.987609
Starting an essay with a binary "one side or the other," 0 or 1, does something subtle, psychologically, to your audience. It puts the reader on defense, makes them ask "am I that side? or the other?" That’s not what “on the level” teaches us, at all.
Obviously You're not my audience for grievances against the Flock cameras (I know exactly who I need to talk to about those), and I deeply respect you. However, I cannot sit idle and not speak; I expect you expect nothing less from me, personally.
So, maybe freedom is the ability to move without being watched, without intrusion into our most intimate details, and to speak freely without material consequence from the government as defined by the Constitution of the United States. Key word in there.
I’ll leave it for whoever wants to find it.
I have certainly considered the fact that as I travel through my little City here, the government is keeping track of my movements. They know when I go, and where I go. I agree, that is a very significant abridgement of my privacy.
Someday I might feel compelled to write about this system.
But, I would argue that 100% of the shade thrown at the UK in this post was in regards to that nation's current abridgement of the freedom of speech, not its use of surveillance cameras. I would argue that while freedom of speech is under attack here in the US, the situation facing that specific freedom in the UK is much worse than here.
And, in my mind, the UK is important for me to write about for a couple of reasons. First, because it is one of the primary places that American ideas about Freedom of Speech came from. Americans didn't conjure these ideas out of thin air, they built on earlier ideas prevalent in the 'old world,' including, England. Secondly, because I'm English by heritage. Emotionally, what happens there is important to me. Perhaps on a practical level it is of little importance, but I do hate to see the ancestral home lose essential freedoms.
I find It very interesting how you invoke the flock cameras. This Has been a quandary of mine for some time. I have my reasons for disliking them and have disliked them and tried to beat the drum since The moment inslee pushed them in the state during covid and all the city councils approved them funded by the state. What I was "nuts" about then in some circles. Now it seems the tide has switched.I still can't stand them , but now , people of the opposite political persuasion of me are just clamoring at how bad they are. I find it a very interesting topic that that is something that we have a commonality in between both sides.
There were lots of people that saw them as a safety net, and they found them comforting. I find with most all safety nets and things that seem comfortable. They come at a cost of loss of freedom and free will. We are seeing this in real time right now just how double edged they are.
So that being illustrated in stupid cameras. Yes the gard rails of proceting emotions with the governance of free speech is like putting the bumpers down at a bowling alley. I don't care who or what party it is, its wrong you will never be a better bowler without a few gutter balls. I fear we will lose morality if we try and do it through legislation. It will be a downward spiral for society to lose the experience of finding the balance of the emotional vs dispassionate ballance or the safty vs freedom ballance.
The argument we hear in my little City in favor of them is that they result in bad guys being caught. Primarily I think auto theft guys. And surely they do. But, at what cost? And has the perceived cost increased dramatically once we learned that not only can our local police access them, but a broad range of alphabet feds too? And increased again now that the photos are considered public documents, available for any requestor?
I imagine that as you point out, both sides seem highly critical of them now, we won't see much in the way of their further expansion. But, I don't imagine that we'll see much contraction of the current numbers.
It seems that whenever a new control is put into place, it never goes away.
MWPGM Bailey,
Thanks for your excellent message. Hopefully, our rights of free speech will be maintained? I see opinions stated on Facebook, that might get folks sent to a Sears Fence Cell at Guantanamo Detention Facility (if one administration has their way).
The NY Army Nat'l Guard flew me to a residence course in Race Relations Equal Opportunity Institute at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. As a Certified Counselor Instructor of Equal Opportunity at an Engineer Battalion HQ in Buffalo NY for 2 years, I firmly believe in Equal Opportunity in our US Military. The recent removal of Sr. Generals & Admirals because they were Black and/ or Female disturbs me. Current rights to speak freely in public (like old days on a soap box in the town park), need to be maintained?
This post was actually born of my frustration of things I've been seeing on Facebook. It seems from what I encounter there that a lot of people have adopted a really partisan view of this essential freedom.
That if it is their preferred political party that is attempting to abridge Freedom of Speech or of the Press, that it is somehow OK, and that it is only wrong if the other party is doing it. I see these views pushed by folks from both ends of the political spectrum.
But of course essential freedoms can't be subject to partisanship like that if they are to survive. We have to protect liberty for everyone, or we will lose it for all.
I agree completely, AND, the one big thing that is different between now and the days of Adams and Jefferson, is that there is absolutely no rein on speech today. Oh, sorry MWB, you ask "what was the rein on speech in that time?"
Why Code Duello, of course.
The knowledge that speech found TOO offensive might just end in a meeting at dawn by the "Dueling oak" has a certain calming effect not currently existent by the threat of a law suit.
Ah, you are certainly right my Brother!
I'm reading about Burr and Hamilton now, and before that it was Jackson. All three quite familiar with dueling of course.
While I can't imagine a return to dueling, when reading about such things I am struck by how highly men regarded their personal honor in the past, and how cheaply some men will throw personal honor away today.
I think our Washington State Constitution is fitting:
"Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right."
This is a great topic, and MW brings up several good points, as do the commentors. I'll just add a couple of thoughts.
One, social media, IMHO, would be much more civil if commentors were required to use their real names. It subtly forces one to think before throwing a bomb into the discussion.
Second, under Citizens United, corporations are considered people and can offer all the speech their assets can afford and Board direct. As I see it, the slick ads overwhelm whatever discussion the regular citizenry can possibly offer and is truly pernicious in undermining our principle of one man one vote.
Still basking in the Seahawk victory - let's repeat at SoFi next year!
Social Media is to me a really fraught thing.
Yesterday someone posted a comment on some post I'd shared over on Facebook. Had I seen the comment as just an opinion from a guy, I wouldn't have thought anything of it. It was hyper partisan and a bit uncivil, but certainly not the worst thing one sees on that platform.
But, I couldn't see it that way.
Because as his profile picture, he used one of the most recognizable of all Masonic symbols. That symbol appeared right next to his comment. By making that choice, he allowed his hyper partisanship and incivility be associated with our Craft, and to my mind that is just plain wrong.
So, I deleted his comment from the post I had shared.
Had he not so clearly tied Freemasonry with his comment I would have let it go without a second thought.
Happier subjects though, yes indeed, Go Hawks!
Go Patriots! (Freedom of Sports 😂)
Voltaire's biographer stated "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and this is something that I was raised on even if something is vile or something is blatantly untrue, I believe someone has the right to rant or state what they would feel as their opinion, their relationship between them and their deity is is between them, what they spew or eloquently proclaim in public you have to simply take as their right to be free in speech, even if you disagree with it or internally question their intelligence and their value to society.
Inside the head is where we think the impure thoughts, the thoughts that we hope no telepath will ever pull from our skulls.
Even if I fragrantly disagree with someone as long as they are not demonstrating or protesting in a violent manner but simply speaking, I feel they have a right to say this ironically I know many people would disagree with me.
Famously we are only three meals and 24 hours away from barbarism, this freedom of speech allows rational and objective behaviour to endure even when someone is not so doing their passions and explicitly demonstrating their freedom of speech. But freedom of speech can still have consequences especially depending on where you exercise this freedom it’s always good to read the room knowing your audience and knowing what kind of reaction you might gain the law often cannot protect you except in the abstract.
I'm generally good with Freedom of Sports when it comes to football. 🤠 The only teams I can't abide are those which move from place to place, showing no regard for their fans. And of course I must give Mrs. Bailey's relatives, all of whom seem to be Cowboys fans, never ending grief.
I personally believe that we need to hear from, and read people whom we disagree with, even strongly disagree with. By doing so we hone our own thoughts. If we instead create silos where we only hear from or read those whom we are in agreement with, we will tend to stop thinking, which of course weakens our ability to think over time.
Couldn’t agree more although I like the Cowboys so it’s fun to watch the sea chickens fans freak out when you say stuff like that but like you said I think it’s highly important that we spend time with people that think completely opposite of us so as to encourage rational debate and genuine appreciation for other peoples points of view
I will say that my best encounter with the Cowboys was when our oldest daughter graduated from doctorin' school. They had a fancy reception in the owners box in that huge stadium. I might have stolen a pack or two of Cowboy cocktail napkins!
I gotta be careful... the Grand Secretary might see my comments on the 'Boys...
You mean the cowgirls? The poor football players down around Dallas who can't perform if they get a hang nail or stub a toe? 😁
Most Worshipful,
First, a quick observation from down here in Arkansas: We actually don’t have a flag retirement ceremony in our work, so seeing that quote from the Grand Lodge of Washington was a fascinating glimpse into how other jurisdictions operate.
I also deeply appreciated the history lesson regarding the Adams and Jefferson era. It is a powerful reminder that while the tools of division change, the danger of "spiraling always downward" into tyranny is nothing new.
In fact, I just finished reading an essay from *The Common Sense Papers* regarding a "Digital Bill of Rights." It argues that if we want a society "Centered on Citizens in Pursuit of Happiness," we must protect our rights in the digital space just as fiercely as in the physical one.
It strikes me that the "vicious circle" you describe, where one side cheers on restrictions until the political winds shift, is even more dangerous now. If we allow the erosion of free speech today, we aren't just handing the "other side" a precedent. We are handing them a digital infrastructure capable of automated censorship and synthetic manipulation that Adams and Jefferson could never have imagined.
As Masons, standing for "the rights of free men" likely means we must now be vigilant not just against government overreach, but against the "invisible architectures" of the digital age that threaten to silence unpopular views before they are even spoken.
Thank you for the timely working tool.
Randy Webster
It isn't considered a part of our secret Work, so I'm pleased to give it to you in its entirety:
"Brethren, in the presence of the Great Lights and under the protecting folds of the Flag of Our Country, we have worked, as Masons, for the good of humanity. As the Flag is retired let us stand at salute in tribute to the emblem of the Nation that guarantees to its citizens the rights of free assembly, free speech, free worship – The rights of free men and of Freemasons."
It is also considered optional work. Although it is almost always given in my experience.
When I've been in the East as WM I generally include it, but not always. I don't if I am worried about whomever might be serving as Marshal losing their balance on the stairs in the east while carrying the flag. I'd hate to see one of our elder Masons go tumbling down the stairs.
>>>We are handing them a digital infrastructure capable of automated censorship and >>>synthetic manipulation
I'm glad you mentioned this, because it is something I have really wondered about in recent years.
My understanding, when the internet was first being adopted by regular people, way back in dial up days, that it had been created as an extremely robust communications system, capable of surviving the most devastating of wartime attacks. That it was thought that the packets of information would always find a way through.
But now, in places like Iran and other totalitarian states we see the government somehow being able to 'turn off' the internet, or 'turn off' certain websites and platforms. Clearly I don't understand the technology, for I can't understand how these capabilities exist. Particularly with satellite providers and the like where it would seem that none of the infrastructure needs to be located within the country in question.
>>>we must now be vigilant not just against government overreach, but against the "invisible >>>architectures" of the digital age that threaten to silence unpopular views before they are >>>even spoken.
Agreed, 100%. We've allowed technology companies to become so large, and we've become so dependent upon them that they are a massive threat as well. I think we saw this pretty clearly during COVID when they shut down anything outside of the preferred narrative.