There's been a lot of talk recently about "Freedom of Speech". It's been at the forefront of our national self-image since our country was formed. The idea that we have the right to say what we want when we want is something we all cherish, even though we really don't have that right. We can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The reality is that what we assume to be freedom of speech isn't what's written in the Constitution. The exact words are:

What we are guaranteed is that the government cannot stifle our words. There is no guarantee afforded us beyond that. That is why it's so disturbing, however, when those who seek office in our government (and their most fervent supporters) would be so heavy-handed when dealing with opposition voices.

The most recent example is the woman stomped at a Rand Paul rally in Kentucky. If by chance you have not seen the video, here it is:



The person doing the stomping is Tim Profitt, one of Rand Paul's campaign chairs. Considering this person self-identifies as a Tea Partier, you would think he'd respect another person's right to free speech and peaceful assembly. In this case, it is not the government shutting down this woman's voice so violently, but a campaign chair for a person seeking office. It cuts pretty close to the bone.

Another case of violence by supporters happened in Arizona where a supporter of Sharron Angle punched a woman in the face when she got up to leave a rally. Her crime? Not being a supporter. Again, not a Constitutional free-speech violation, but - again - you'd think someone in the Tea Party movement would have more respect for another person's ability to voice their opinion.

We also have a supporter of WA state hopeful Dino Rossi saying that her opposition "should be shot", in front of Rossi. Rossi - a Tea Party candidate for Senate - did not chastise the woman:

Yes... because "she ought to be shot" is so ambiguous. Either he did not have the political courage to tell her she was wrong, or he supported the sentiment. Either way, very disturbing for someone who will be tasked with upholding the Constitution if elected.

The most disturbing to me, though is the incident at a Joe Miller (hopeful from Alaska) rally. In that case, a reporter was "arrested" by private security goons at a public Miller rally. Is this how Miller sees the role of government - a private brown-shirt militia to enforce the silencing of those who dare question him? Once in DC, who's to say he wouldn't use Blackwater (oh excuse me - "Xe") to corral his critics?

It's not like this hasn't happened before. Remember the "free speech zones" at Bush/Cheney events? Those were those fenced-off areas away from the actual events where protesters could have their voices not heard? People were ousted from events, simply for the bumper-stickers on their cars, and others were arrested for wearing T-shirts expressing a contrary point of view. These were horrendous infringements by government officials on the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

How many Republicans objected to this? How many pundits on FOX News objected to this? How many people that now self-identify as Tea Party candidates objected to this?

That's why it's so odd that they would scream about the supposed infringement on the freedom of speech they imagine has been brought upon former NPR news analyst Juan Williams, who was fired from his job for repeatedly violating his contract. This is not unprecedented - it's also happened to Don Imus, Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez. I don't recall FOX News, Republican politicians, and Tea Partiers protesting those firings.

Oh, did I say "odd"? I guess I meant hypocritical.