Thank you for this MW, I will make sure to spread this around. I guess this makes me wonder why this is not talked about more. I know that in the Scottish Rite there is supposed to be a committee on Americanism. And when I joined the Rite, we used to receive educational presentations on Americanism that were fantastic. Ranging from the history of the American flag to remembering Pearl Harbor, as well as presentations on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and more. It’s been over two years since we have had a presentation, maybe a rousing educational piece from our Most Worshipful is just what we needed to get that plane off the ground again. So thank you for this MW, I hope for more videos in the future. I think this is a great way to convey your papers.
Having just watched all of the degrees of the Scottish Rite SJ again, I am struck by how seriously the foundational precepts of our country are highlighted. It's quite inspiring, and a good reminder for us all. One of those Degrees makes a very strong argument for free speech that I hope to write about here someday soon.
The degree orientation at Bremerton Valley Wa. addresses this as well. It lays a few reminders at the feet of each candidate. It is very inspiring indeed. I will try to get my hands on a copy of it to share with you sometime.
Very salient points good sir. Well said and well written....
However, I feel your reference to "monopolistic technology companies" and Freedom of Speech is off mark. It is not censorship for someone to be removed.
As you quoted, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." A business is not government and every business restricts speech everyday. Please excuse the language here but to make my point. An employee can not tell their boss to F*** off or use such language to their customers without repercussion. Sexual harassment language is not tolerated in the workplace. The offender can not claim freedom of speech rights.
I know of businesses that prohibit wearing of buttons, shirts, hats, pins, etc. or even open discussion of politics or religion while working. Employees have been fired for what they wrote on social media on their personal time. There is no legal recourse for fired or disciplined employees because multiple law cases have established the employers right to enforce those restrictions.
Within Lodge, many of those items are applied as well. A Brother who yells profanity during invocation or prayer or speaks over or demeans a Brother with vile language would not be tolerated. Repeated and continued behavior would likely result in disciplinary action or even expulsion.
Are there limits on what a Brother may write or try to discuss here on Emeth? This is your social platform where every participant is respectful and well spoken.
If someone stepped outside of those bounds continuing to use excessive foul language, antithetical topics or were abusive to others, would you exercise your option to block them?
A social media company removing someone's account is not censorship, nor infringement of freedom of speech. Again, it is a business not Congress. Businesses everyday set standards and rules. Masonry does as well. It disallows revealing ritual to anyone uninitiated as just one example.
I can write a letter to the editor. If a newspaper chooses not to print it, is that censorship? No, they own the platform. It is their business and their choice. It is not a governmental infringement at all, thus not a "free speech" issue.
If I write a book, not every book publishing company is obliged to print it otherwise my speech has been infringed. Again, it is their business and their choice. Decades ago in a class debate, I led the team about First Amendment and it's different applications. It has stayed with me ever since.
Secondly good sir, you referenced "freedom of the media" and that media wouldn't cover a "New York Post" story. Congress did not "pass a law" prohibiting other media from covering any story. That is/was a business decision by each individual media company, not because of any enacted legislation. "Freedom of media" is not at all applicable in that scenario.
Conversely, the New York Post (or any media source) is under no obligation to cover a story they chose not to, or ones that don't fit their chosen narrative. Your statement on the specificity of the NYP works both ways.
Side note - the fact that the NYP was founded by Hamilton is not relevant. Whatever his content standards were, it is unknown if it would the same standards or positions as the current ownership and editorial choices. The name drop had no bearing on your point. Apologies if that sounds rude.
Thirdly, the reference to "right to peacefully assemble...petitions to redress grievances" is a valid point and was concerning. Let's also be honest though, prior to fences being erected around the state capitol, many who were assembling were openly armed and behaving in menacing if not outright threatening way. Violence and property destruction had been happening at other capitols. There were threats made against not only elected individuals but their families as well. Was it prudent to error on side of security and safety?
I am not saying it was the right course of action. But it was unique times and there was a lot of anger in the air. Indirect point - we lock our cars, we lock our doors and windows at home for security. Within Masonry, how many Lodges lock their doors to keep homeless, street youths or even the curious out. If someone stood outside with an AR15 demanding to be heard, should the WM open the door?
Would that be wise? Or wait till calmer heads prevail? There are established methods to redress grievances publicly, namely town halls. Also address grievances in private or less public by calling, writing their representative and ask for an audience. Redress of grievances is not a 24/7 option to be done at the whim of a protestor. There is a time and place for discourse. Bullying one's way into a building to demand an audience is (IMO) inappropriate. But again, IMO, it may have been done for the sake of the cameras present.
I understand and agree with much of your point about loss of civil liberties and Bill of Rights infringements. I just want to state that the right to assemble was not banned or made illegal.
Was fencing the capital the correct decision? Who can say what may or may not have happened. Hindsight does show what happened at multiple other state capitals as well as on Jan 6th.
Freedom of Speech has its applications and guarantees but is not universal. It relates to government restrictions. Business and private entities restrict it every day. Violence and property destruction is not freedom of speech.
Violence or the threat of violence has to be taken seriously these days. There is a reason schools have a zero weapons policy. Personal safety and security is also of paramount concern. At what point who's civil liberties supersede the others? Those that assemble balanced with those who are going about their workday without fear. The right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed. I will say I personally witnessed acts of intimidation, confrontation, aggression and even violence during this tumultuous period.
As much as I'd like to forward this to many people, I can't in good conscious because of what I feel is misuse of First Amendment references. That content of otherwise your brilliant writing refrains me from sharing.
I always look forward to your daily emails and the questions brought forth. They provide me with points and thoughts to ponder, discuss and expand my awareness, both short term and long term. Thank you for providing that and creating a platform to allow diverse and well intentioned discussion.
MW, in the video intro you said it was written over a year ago and contained references to past current events. You are a prolific writer, and I was surprised it was not updated by a simple re-write of a couple paragraphs. There is a plethora of individual civil liberties that are eroding and taken away.
Very well said, MW Cameron Bailey.
Thank you for this MW, I will make sure to spread this around. I guess this makes me wonder why this is not talked about more. I know that in the Scottish Rite there is supposed to be a committee on Americanism. And when I joined the Rite, we used to receive educational presentations on Americanism that were fantastic. Ranging from the history of the American flag to remembering Pearl Harbor, as well as presentations on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and more. It’s been over two years since we have had a presentation, maybe a rousing educational piece from our Most Worshipful is just what we needed to get that plane off the ground again. So thank you for this MW, I hope for more videos in the future. I think this is a great way to convey your papers.
Having just watched all of the degrees of the Scottish Rite SJ again, I am struck by how seriously the foundational precepts of our country are highlighted. It's quite inspiring, and a good reminder for us all. One of those Degrees makes a very strong argument for free speech that I hope to write about here someday soon.
The degree orientation at Bremerton Valley Wa. addresses this as well. It lays a few reminders at the feet of each candidate. It is very inspiring indeed. I will try to get my hands on a copy of it to share with you sometime.
You have my vote for Governor of Washington State!
Very salient points good sir. Well said and well written....
However, I feel your reference to "monopolistic technology companies" and Freedom of Speech is off mark. It is not censorship for someone to be removed.
As you quoted, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." A business is not government and every business restricts speech everyday. Please excuse the language here but to make my point. An employee can not tell their boss to F*** off or use such language to their customers without repercussion. Sexual harassment language is not tolerated in the workplace. The offender can not claim freedom of speech rights.
I know of businesses that prohibit wearing of buttons, shirts, hats, pins, etc. or even open discussion of politics or religion while working. Employees have been fired for what they wrote on social media on their personal time. There is no legal recourse for fired or disciplined employees because multiple law cases have established the employers right to enforce those restrictions.
Within Lodge, many of those items are applied as well. A Brother who yells profanity during invocation or prayer or speaks over or demeans a Brother with vile language would not be tolerated. Repeated and continued behavior would likely result in disciplinary action or even expulsion.
Are there limits on what a Brother may write or try to discuss here on Emeth? This is your social platform where every participant is respectful and well spoken.
If someone stepped outside of those bounds continuing to use excessive foul language, antithetical topics or were abusive to others, would you exercise your option to block them?
A social media company removing someone's account is not censorship, nor infringement of freedom of speech. Again, it is a business not Congress. Businesses everyday set standards and rules. Masonry does as well. It disallows revealing ritual to anyone uninitiated as just one example.
I can write a letter to the editor. If a newspaper chooses not to print it, is that censorship? No, they own the platform. It is their business and their choice. It is not a governmental infringement at all, thus not a "free speech" issue.
If I write a book, not every book publishing company is obliged to print it otherwise my speech has been infringed. Again, it is their business and their choice. Decades ago in a class debate, I led the team about First Amendment and it's different applications. It has stayed with me ever since.
Secondly good sir, you referenced "freedom of the media" and that media wouldn't cover a "New York Post" story. Congress did not "pass a law" prohibiting other media from covering any story. That is/was a business decision by each individual media company, not because of any enacted legislation. "Freedom of media" is not at all applicable in that scenario.
Conversely, the New York Post (or any media source) is under no obligation to cover a story they chose not to, or ones that don't fit their chosen narrative. Your statement on the specificity of the NYP works both ways.
Side note - the fact that the NYP was founded by Hamilton is not relevant. Whatever his content standards were, it is unknown if it would the same standards or positions as the current ownership and editorial choices. The name drop had no bearing on your point. Apologies if that sounds rude.
Thirdly, the reference to "right to peacefully assemble...petitions to redress grievances" is a valid point and was concerning. Let's also be honest though, prior to fences being erected around the state capitol, many who were assembling were openly armed and behaving in menacing if not outright threatening way. Violence and property destruction had been happening at other capitols. There were threats made against not only elected individuals but their families as well. Was it prudent to error on side of security and safety?
I am not saying it was the right course of action. But it was unique times and there was a lot of anger in the air. Indirect point - we lock our cars, we lock our doors and windows at home for security. Within Masonry, how many Lodges lock their doors to keep homeless, street youths or even the curious out. If someone stood outside with an AR15 demanding to be heard, should the WM open the door?
Would that be wise? Or wait till calmer heads prevail? There are established methods to redress grievances publicly, namely town halls. Also address grievances in private or less public by calling, writing their representative and ask for an audience. Redress of grievances is not a 24/7 option to be done at the whim of a protestor. There is a time and place for discourse. Bullying one's way into a building to demand an audience is (IMO) inappropriate. But again, IMO, it may have been done for the sake of the cameras present.
I understand and agree with much of your point about loss of civil liberties and Bill of Rights infringements. I just want to state that the right to assemble was not banned or made illegal.
Was fencing the capital the correct decision? Who can say what may or may not have happened. Hindsight does show what happened at multiple other state capitals as well as on Jan 6th.
Freedom of Speech has its applications and guarantees but is not universal. It relates to government restrictions. Business and private entities restrict it every day. Violence and property destruction is not freedom of speech.
Violence or the threat of violence has to be taken seriously these days. There is a reason schools have a zero weapons policy. Personal safety and security is also of paramount concern. At what point who's civil liberties supersede the others? Those that assemble balanced with those who are going about their workday without fear. The right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed. I will say I personally witnessed acts of intimidation, confrontation, aggression and even violence during this tumultuous period.
As much as I'd like to forward this to many people, I can't in good conscious because of what I feel is misuse of First Amendment references. That content of otherwise your brilliant writing refrains me from sharing.
I always look forward to your daily emails and the questions brought forth. They provide me with points and thoughts to ponder, discuss and expand my awareness, both short term and long term. Thank you for providing that and creating a platform to allow diverse and well intentioned discussion.
MW, in the video intro you said it was written over a year ago and contained references to past current events. You are a prolific writer, and I was surprised it was not updated by a simple re-write of a couple paragraphs. There is a plethora of individual civil liberties that are eroding and taken away.