-36 votes

In Defense of Piers Morgan

Ok, I would like to point out I in no way agree with Piers Morgan and quite frankly I think he's rather ignorant on the Second Amendment and Firearms in general. That being said, I think trying to petition to have him deported is just as ignorant and wrong as he is on the Second Amendment.

He also has the right to his opinion, regardless of country of origin, culture, or state of citizenship in my opinion. The First Amendment in my eyes guarantee anyone the right to bring their argument to the table without fear of consequence regardless of whether their argument is accepted or not.

The very act of trying to deport him is rather offensive to his natural right to speak his mind(regardless of his station or clout). Instead of seeking to silence someone who has a disagreement with what we believe we should simply seek to educate them and others to make their argument null and void. I realize he is playing a demagogue standpoint however that does not mean disenfranchise him and refuse him the right to speak his mind.

It will be more widely accepted and more than likely better understood if we approached this with logic, compassion, and education. We are the ones who are constantly disenfranchised by these people, and we should not seek to do the same to them. If we do, and our message is heard, we become the oppressors.

That is not our goal my friends.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I feel like this thread is a

I feel like this thread is a great example of how liberty is failing.

What happened to "I disagree with you, but I will defend to death your right to say it"?

People are letting their emotions and desires get in front of their principles. Moreover, they are using the collective force that they despise to achieve an end.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

well...

What I disagree with MOST is his snarky way of saying "all Americans" or "most Americans" as if All Americans or Most Americans agree with his drivel. Since his spew is going out over the air waves there are too many unawakened people sitting on their couches watching tv glassy-eyed, getting sucked into what he is saying.

That is wrong and should be at the very least counter-acted.

He certainly does NOT speak for me so "ALL Americans" goes right out the window. I know tons of people who disagree with what he is saying so MOST Americans could be incorrect also. Even when his own television audience %100 disagreed with him he didn't acknowledge it. I believe he fits into the plan to disarm Americans and as such I am for removing him. I've read comments that Britain doesn't want him back either.

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Is the petition not Free Speech as well?

Just sayin'

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

no

a petition for action is precisely not speech. the act of petitioning is not in question. it is the export part.

On the contrary...no one

On the contrary...no one expects that anything 'legal' will come of any of these petitions. Ha - the government actually doing anything about complaints by its citizens? Never. This is a means for the people to gain a platform in response to Piers' mega-platform. So, it is a form of speech.

if you actually think that

and you were consistent with your beliefs, then you should accept morgan's opinion as a form of protected speech.

I agree with the OP wholeheartedly!!!

Free speech that you agree with needs no protection, which is rather obvious and self-evident. Who in their right mind would possibly try to silence speech that they agree with. The idea is nonsensical!!!

Because of this basic, elementary, and self-evident fact, the "right to free speech" necessarily applies ONLY to speech that others disagree with.

Piers Morgan is also on the wrong side of the guns debate because he makes the same mistake in logic.

The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the gov'ts guns. It protects the right of THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH THE GOV'T to arm themselves. The Gov't doesn't need an amendment to protect it's guns from itself....

...and it has no need to silence those that agree with it, LMAO!!!

Privileges can be awarded, revoked, exchanged, etc. However, a rights, by the very definition of the word, is UNIVERSAL, without exception.

Please don't try to convert my 1st amendment rights, OR my 2nd amendment rights to mere privileges..... Or any other human rights, for that matter.

Piers Morgan, run your mouth all you want, you bloody ignorant bloke!!!

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Freedom of speech

Is much different than what Piers Morgan is doing.

Agenda-based 'reporting'(and I use the term loosely for Morgan) is tantamount to propaganda.

If he gave both sides a fair shake it would be different. He is presenting such a one-sided case it makes me ill just to watch it.

Agreed!

Deport the Brit and send him back where he came from. We have got enough of his Ilk reporting one sided agenda based propaganda as it is so we certainly don't need no Brit Boy coming over here on our lands adding another voice to the agenda to disarm us. We have enough self proclaimed American's doing that already with other foreign entity's such as the UN standing behind these scumbags all the way....He's a Punk....

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

No, you don't get it. Free

No, you don't get it. Free speech is EXACTLY what he is doing. Free speech means talking about stuff you don't like or agree with and you can't do a damn thing about it. He's under no obligation to report both sides! He can get up there and report that Cthulu slaughtered 10,000 children yesterday as fact.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

It's my opinion

That he is actually SUBVERTING free speech. CNN and a few other news outlets. By presenting the other side to be complete idiots and using scripting to ensure the pro gun rights argument is not coherent. So much for CNN claiming to be 'fair and balanced', which is in fact their claim.

No, that's Fox's line.

No, that's Fox's line.

There's no such thing as unbiased. You're basically saying that disagreeing with you and broadcasting it publicly is equal to subverting free speech. That makes no sense.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Should still be deported

Immigration laws are a power that we the people delegated to Congress. We need to take a step back and analyze why it would be necessary for a government to control who is allowed to enter and remain in a country. It goes right back to the very reason we created a government. The purpose of government is to provide an environment where freedom can thrive. As long as a government is healthy and supports freedom, it should be allowed to remain in power. In order to remain in power, a government must resist those enemies that seek to undermine and destroy it. It is why governments are accorded a sovereign right to exist. If a healthy government ceases to exist, then there is a real possibility that we as a people would have our human rights violated by other people and other governments seeking to fill the vacuum left by an insolvent beneficial government. I believe that since Piers is a foreign person, that he does not have the same rights that a citizen has. Those rights include the right to alter or abolish our government. He is not part of "we the people" who consent to be governed.

Furthermore, one can easily argue that his right to free speech would be jeopardized by being deported. He still has a right to free speech as that is an inalienable right. In fact, he can still produce content for CNN while out of the country, he can protest right outside any US port-of-entry, he can even bring a case before our court to argue why he should be let back in and our courts will hear the matter so his right to petition our government for a redress of his grievances will still be in place.

So, in summary, his free speech rights would not be lost and it is within our government's power to deport people under the rights given to Congress to make immigration laws, he should be deported. He has no right to alter or abolish the Constitution and that includes trying to get others to do it. Our government must defend itself against enemies both foreign and domestic.

________________________________________

Thanks for your comments

I agree that the federal government can regulate who comes in and out of the country.

I like when you say "In order to remain in power, a government must resist those enemies that seek to undermine and destroy it" because it rightly draws no distinction between aliens and citizens. If a person is trying to bring down the government, the government can stop him or her, regardless of citizenship.

What I question is whether we want to live in a society where any advocacy of gun control is grounds for the government to go after someone. After all, if Pierce Morgan advocating gun control truly is an attempt to destroy the United States government, then it is equally true that any Joe Schmo American citizens doing the same is likewise conspiring against America and can be punished by the government. And then once this broad view becomes precedent, who knows what other types of speech would be considered seditious?

Let's leave deportation to people who have come to this country illegally, stayed beyond their legal time frame, who break other laws, or who are, in a very direct and provable way, trying to bring down the government (e.g., there is evidence of a plot to blow up a federal building).

Hmmm...

Let me address your last remark first, because it is the simplest. Ron Paul already addressed how to deal with illegal aliens, you simply quit subsidizing them. At that point, the only ones who would likely come are the ones who can make it on their own. Those are the kind of people we would want because it would be an increase in the gross domestic output of this nation. In fact, if you read the Law Of Nations, the only book referenced in the Constitution, you can see that all forms of immigration are welcomed up to the extent that the immigrant is a burden upon the nation. Those that seek to alter or abolish the Constitution are a burden.

As far as government protecting itself, I think we are not on the same track here. You see, citizens have the right to alter or abolish our government. The government only exists because we the people consent to being governed and that consent can be withdrawn, just as we did with England. Foreign people are a special circumstance because they are not citizens and since are not part of the people who have consented to be governed, he has less rights to remain here than citizens have. As for your slippery slope argument about the government trying to protect itself against citizens, that is not a logical conclusion. Immigration laws do not give Congress the power to deport natural born citizens. Citizens have rights to try and alter and abolish the Constitution because they are the ones who consented to be governed and can withdraw or limit that consent. As far as the government trying to protect itself against citizens, that shouldn't happen in a healthy nation. However, what we have today is a sick nation and if our leaders can't get back on track, then the people have an obligation to overthrow the government. In fact, the Declaration of Independence asserts that it is our right and our duty to throw off such government. I don't disagree that our leaders would abuse the power, in fact, I feel it is quite inevitable. However, I doubt the deportation of an alien would provide any kind of legal precedence for which the government can further usurp our rights. If it did, we are obligated to start kicking some tail, regardless of the sequence of events that leads to such outcome.

________________________________________

I see what you are saying,

I see what you are saying, and I didn't mean to suggest that deportation of citizens is a likely course of action for the government to take. What I am concerned about is this series of thinking:

Step 1: Pierce Morgan advocating gun control is dangerous and is tantamount to an attempt to alter or abolish the American form of government.

Step 2: This isn't unique to Pierce Morgan. In general, advocacy of gun control is dangerous and is tantamount to an attempt to alter or abolish the American form of government.

Step 3: If an American citizen advocates gun control, the government has the right to defend itself against an aggressor and can punish the speaker

Step 4+: similar restrictions based on the same logic.

More simply, I find it pretty difficult how to avoid the logic that "if it is super duper dangerous to the longevity of the US government for a foreigner to say XYZ, then it is super duper dangerous for a citizen to say XYZ as well"

I agree with you on the issue of Americans have a right to alter or abolish the government, and foreigners not having that right (although not absolutely -- after all plenty of foreigners were complicit int the alteration of the government in the Revolution, such as Lafayette). The question is whether we want to have the precedent that mere advocacy of gun control is tantamount to an attempt to destroy the American government, for all the reasons I discuss above and elsewhere.

The point about people who are here illegally, I completely agree. To be honest from a policy perspective I find just en masse deportation to be highly inefficient, but my point was simply that I accept the fact that the government COULD deport you simply for being here illegally if it so chose.

PS: going to bed, but I very much enjoyed our conversation! Feel free to reply and I will read it tomorrow morning. Happy trails :)

You don't get your rights from the Constitution

You are born with them. Why say that Morgan doesn't get his rights because he is isn't an American citizen. What does that matter? What does it matter if he's British, or Irish, or Mexican, or Chinese? It doesn't matter what piece of ground you were born on, you are a free and sovereign being. Governments, contracts, constitutions and laws do not grant you freedom. You are born free.

The Constitution doesn't grant you rights; the Constitution restricts the governments from violating your rights.

With or without the Constitution you have natural rights. Before the Constitution was ratified people lived on this land. Did they not have rights because there was no Constitution at the time?

I say that they did have rights, and that everyone, everywhere, at all times, has rights.

~ Peace Love Revolution ~

Doesn't matter what you believe mattwood1776

the fact is you and the others here defending Piers Morgan have had your asses handed to you on a platter all up and down this post.All anyone has to do is read a little to show how ignorant some here are with their "beliefs" completely ignoring citizenship status,the definition of sedition and US Laws when it has been repeatedly shown to them.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

It's interesting that you defend that statists

Why do you defend the immoral acts of an oppressive government? It's legal to put someone in a cage for smoking pot; is that right?

"It's one's moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" - MLK

Legality doesn't matter, only morality. The NDAA makes if legal to lock you up indefinitely without trial, but it doesn't make it right.

It's better to stay true to the principles of a voluntary and peaceful society, than to abide by the rules of an oppressive one.

You can't claim to be a Libertarian and then use government force to kidnap someone, and ship them off to the place of your liking because you don't like what he has to say.

What happened to the principle of non-aggression?

~ Peace Love Revolution ~

If something done by a

If something done by a foreigner is seditious, then the same act is seditious if performed by a citizen. Name me one action that would be seditious if a foreigner does it but it's not seditious if a citizen does it.

You are making an assumption

that Piers Morgan has the same rights US citizens. He doesn't.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vo...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/23/wall-street-journal-column...

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

The case you cite is about

The case you cite is about whether the government is compelled to grant a visa to any foreign journalist. It has nothing to do with seditious acts. I ask again: name me one act that would be seditious if a foreigner did it, but not seditious if a citizen did it.

Why are you defending Piers Morgan so vigorously

when he is a mouthpiece for the globalist elite plan to disarm the US citizenry?

edit
Never mind I read other post's of yours here.You are a lost cause.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

It's not about defending

It's not about defending Piers. It's about defending the very facts that cause us to support liberty. It's about defending freedom of speech, the first and foremost among our natural rights! It has nothing to do with citizenship.

It is becoming clear in this discussion that a large amount of people such as yourself have attached yourselves to this movement for entirely the wrong reasons. You do NOT support liberty, or believe in freedom, no matter how much you scream the contrary. You want to deport someone over what they SAID. Nothing they did! You are NOT a friend of liberty. You are NOT within your rights.

You are calling for an act of violence. You are calling for the initiation of violence. That's the whole point of why we are here -- to fight AGAINST the initiation of violence. HOW do you not get that? HOW can you be so completely blind?!

Piers is wrong, utterly wrong! But you take away HIS freedom of speech, and there's no reason you or I should have any either! Let's just lock up all the dissenters!

Good lord.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Here's my thinking.A lot of

Here's my thinking.

A lot of people don't like what Pierce Morgan is saying. One way to retaliate against him that has been advocated here and elsewhere is to deport him for sedition. The idea is that he is a guest in our country, so the government can kick him out if what he is doing is seditious.

This troubles me for several reasons. The most important reason is that 'an act of sedition is an act of sedition', no matter who the actor is. That is, it doesn't matter if the perpetrator is American or non-American. Once an act is in the category of sedition, the government can punish citizens and non-citizens alike. For example, it was once considered seditious to be a communist, and both citizens and non-citizens were punished in various ways for their affiliation.

There are plenty of people who support at least some form of gun control. I do not agree with every detail of what they say, but I do not think that everyone who supports some form of gun control should be punished by the government. Giving the government the enormous power to regulate speech is dangerous and the antithesis of a free society.

Am I being paranoid in thinking that the government will jump at the opportunity of regulating all kinds of speech under the label of 'sedition?' Perhaps. But it is not wholly unfounded. Treating support for gun control as sedition is unprecedented in this country, and it is easy to see how such a broad-ranging definition of sedition can easily snowball to other areas of government regulation of speech.

This is especially important given the dubious interpretations of the Constitution that the Supreme Court currently and in the past has held. For example, there is now a strong precedent that it is unconstitutional for a private owner of a 'public accommodation' such as a restaurant to discriminate on the basis of race. Many people, including Rand Paul, have challenged this interpretation. Should anyone who has espoused the private property view of discrimination be considered seditious? If we start from the premise that 'speech that goes against the Constitution is seditious', and then add the political reality that such discrimination is widely perceived by the governing entities as being unconstitutional, then such speech will be interpreted as seditious.

As a member of the Daily Paul community, you no doubt are well aware of the snowballing effect of government power. Before advocating an expansion of federal power over the lives of individuals, I hope you consider the precedent that you are setting.

jrd3820's picture

What do we stand to benefit by deporting him?

Will the anti 2nd amendment folk back down after that?

Or will CNN (is that his network?) just replace him with someone who is just as radical or even more radical than him?

No one was watching his show. His ratings were horrible, he will fade away again and eventually be cancelled. Unless of course we hype up his name and sensationalize him..........

Getting rid of him will do nothing for the 2nd amendment, it will do nothing for the argument people are having right now over assault riffles and mass killings.

And, let's be honest here.... an internet petition is not going to get him deported anyways.

It's simple!

The message will be clear that We will NOT tolerate this anymore than another nation would!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Yeah, you're right,

Yeah, you're right, tolerating free speech hasn't worked well for us, let's just do it the fascist way.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Silly to Deport Him

As I said before, his opinion represents the opinion of many people, so deporting him will gain us nothing.

If we can't think of a way to convince him of his errors, then we are never going to be able to convince others like him.

The flaws in his argument were obvious, so he did us a favor, as the 'Tube will be widely circulated, however, the suggestion that he be deported makes people sound just as irrational and hate-filled as he did.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/