The writers at the Daily have done an excellent job of examining the Constitution recently. However, there is one portion of that terrible document they forgot to condemn, and it threatens our lives even more than others they have decried.

Therefore, I modestly propose one addition to their editorials on the grounds that mine is milder and has more justification behind it. Yes, the First Amendment is outdated. This ill-conceived rule was only made so evil farmers could talk about the government, their peers and anyone else without being jailed for speaking without approval.

Back in those times, they didnt have rapid communication such as telephones and the internet. Words had to travel very slowly by mouth and perhaps carried by horses, giving plenty of time to prevent thought crime, which must be accounted for differently today. Besides, black people and women had a different legal position, so we can automatically discount any ideal from the era as outdated.

People like me who see the wisdom in discarding the First Amendment could amend the Constitution with a heavy majority in Congress. But it would be easier to tell people that its irrelevant and gradually pass laws to eliminate its range of application so we dont have to wade through the tedium of coming up with better arguments and getting more seats in Congress on our side.

Where does the First Amendment even fit in a good world? Should we have every mother and father explain their views of the world to their kids and spend the day worrying that the youth might come to a different conclusion? Should we accept the possibility that any worker you encounter on your daily business has different opinions than yourself?

If a man were to shout fire in a crowded theater, others would repeat his shout and some would shout the opposite, creating a complete mess for authorities determining if there ever had been a fire. Behold, this problem reaches to the beginning of recorded history, with individuals, nations and entire species that were described but whose existence is uncertain.

Lets make the ACLU a division of the government; any group that lobbies Congress is practically in the government already, never mind that some other lobbyist organizations are actually receiving federal funding. Perhaps they can distribute thesauruses or pamphlets on theories of government. When we give everyone a reason to question authority, what could go wrong? If someone shouted a slur at pedestrians from a car and sped away, Id like to see free-speech advocates open their mouths and try to think of a rebuttal to erase the damage.

Pro-speech rights people would rush to wave my example away as an exaggeration and argue that people would have training to prevent poor grammar and logical fallacies. But they forget, we already have plenty of politicians to handle public speaking for us, so letting civilians have their own ideas is redundant. Thats why we should strike the First Amendment.

Im not claiming we need to abandon words or even the English language. We just need to control people more. Lets clamp down the right to speak freely and peaceably assemble. We cant trust 18-year-olds, 22-year-olds or 26-year-olds with responsibility like that; who knows what they might say? More ideas and thinking arent the answer to a complex situation like our modern world. Instead, we should move the designated area to assemble with controversial ideas off campus, then into a basement, and then require a permit to enter the basement. Hopefully, people will forget about free speech and religion before a disaster happens.

Follow this link:

Letter: Why not strike the First Amendment? - Iowa State Daily