let it all collapse, the icon for the www.punkerslut.com website
Home Articles Critiques Books Video
About Graphics CopyLeft Links Music

The Struggle for the Right to Opinion

By Punkerslut

Image from Anarchist Black Cross
Image: From Anarchist Black Cross

Start Date: Friday, April 4, 2003
Finish Date: Saturday, April 5, 2003

     I have written an essay before, defending the right of every individual to use their voice to express the questions of their mind, the concerns of their heart. No person, regardless of their confessed religion, regardless of their duty to any political party, and regardless of whatever ideology or creed they call their own -- no person should ever be denied the right to speak what they feel, what they believe, what their judgments of the world are. It is this freedom, this right to opinion, that so many have claimed for everyone, yet have found specific cases where they do not believe in liberty. The United States Constitution clearly dictates a separation of church and state, yet the congressmen and senators of this country pledge their allegiance to a nation "under god." Such blatant hypocrisy and contradiction, it only requires someone with a conviction equaled by their ignorance -- and so we have a generalization of the ruling class that finally seems fitting. The First Amendment of the American Constitution claims for all citizens the right to speak their minds, but again and again, this opinion has been repressed, crushed under the feet of a blood thirsty juggernaut In the late 1700's and early 1800's, we have the witch hunts. Every oddity about a person's character became a reason to suspect that they adhered to the dark, Satanic crafts -- and religion, again, served the foul purposes of iniquitors. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, we have the rise of Comstock. Any writings that dealt with human sexuality were repressed, and humans were kept in silent ignorance. The 1900's gave rise to the Red Scare and McCarthy's denunciations of the Communist Party, as well as the Black Listing of suspects. A individual's personal affiliations and creeds were now subject to government interference, and the human conscience remained in the grasp of a tyrant. Every effort to fight back was suppressed, but there was no humane person who didn't fight back.

     Wherever there has been an unpopular opinion, there has always been a government to oppress its followers. When a person is allowed to think and speak freely, then I will call their environment a living Democracy. It is true, I cannot always defend the conclusions of their own heart -- the verdict of the jury that is their mind. If a person comes to the conclusion that Adolf Hitler was right and that Nazi ideology is truth, I will stand by their right to make that decision. I will stand by it so long as the blood in my veins continues to flow. The advancement of science and understanding will only be hampered if restrictions are put on what the mind may study. If it is true that humaneness is the natural creed of the heart, that there are no gods to plague the dreams of men, that the tale of the Ark is no more than a myth, and that it is cruel to kill an animal to consume it -- if these things are true, then to censor any other opinion certainly does not aid your cause. Let the mind be free. There can be no greater action to ensure the happiness of every person. But there may be arguments, that if we allow true liberty to exist, people will join the Nazi ranks, and that we ought to ban any literature or talk if it promotes White Supremacy, or whatever vile doctrine. Fascism can never work for the people. The attitude that, "Fascism can work, as long as it is working for us," is flawed. Every person has their own mind, and their right to study any creed, any religion, any tenet of political theory, this right ought to forever remain unabridged. Disagreement comes from the fear of the potential of intelligence combined with liberty.

     Every person has the right to think and say what they will, to weigh the evidence for any claim and make their own conclusions. This is a right I will grant to any person, no matter what conclusions they come to. I must reiterate this: I believe in the right to opinion, no matter what the opinion. It has been the habit of many a past writer to so vaguely yet powerful stand by every person's right to opinion, but then when the evil beast of Partisan Politics caught their attention, or when something so foul came about that they denied anyone the right to research it. Well I say this is wrong. No person has the right to disallow another person's right to knowledge. No person can say it is a crime to believe in anything, no matter how "vicious" the "civilized world" believes it. If today we burn the books written by Nazis, it is done with no less ignorance than when the Nazis burned books of their opposition. There is a trend in this, and the trend is oppression. Again, I will say it: every person can believe what they want, and draw whatever conclusions they desire from what they observe. Anyone who has read my words can find it no difficult proposition to believe that I admire the writings of Robert Green Ingersoll, but he, too, had made a declaration for the right to opinion, only later to repeal certain groups from having that opinion.... To quote him...

"Only a few years ago there was a great awakening of the human mind. Men began to inquire by what right a crowned robber made them work for him? The man who asked this question was called a traitor. Others asked by what right does a robed hypocrite rule my thought? Such men were called infidels. The priest said, and the king said, where is this spirit of investigation to stop? They said then and they say now, that it is dangerous for man to be free. I deny it. Out on the intellectual sea there is room enough for every sail. In the intellectual air there is space enough for every wing.

"The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellowmen." ["The Liberty of All," by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1877.]

     It is not abnormal -- when we read these words, we instantly find ourselves full of inspiration, of peace, of tranquility. Still, beyond these natural emotions, we find something more: an empathic admiration of the author -- we understand what they are saying, why they are saying it, and we agree wholeheartedly. Much of Ingersoll's writings are like this: sensitive to the dualistic nature of man's heart, understanding of concerns just as much as addressing the emotional lust of a man's mind. But then, when a person reads of the other writings of Ingersoll, they find a wholly different opinion on the matter of the right to opinion. Speaking of the cruelty enacted on certain political parties, Colonel Ingersoll said...

"THE Democratic party, so-called, have several charges which they make against the Republican party. They give us a variety of reasons why the Republican party should no longer be entrusted with the control of this country. Among other reasons they say that the Republican party during the war was guilty of arresting citizens without due process of law -- that we arrested Democrats and put them in jail without indictment, in Lincoln bastiles, without making an affidavit before a justice of the Peace -- that on some occasions we suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and that on one or two occasions we interfered with the freedom of the press.

"I admit that we did all these things. I admit that we put some Democrats in jail without their being indicted. I am sorry we did not put more. I admit we arrested some of them without an affidavit filed before a justice of the Peace. I sincerely regret that we did not arrest more. I admit that for a few hours on one or two occasions we interfered with the freedom of the press; I sincerely regret that the Government allowed a sheet to exist that did not talk on the side of this Government." ["Indianapolis Speech," by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1868.]

     No person who believes in freedom will find inspiration in these words, and all who understand the basic precepts of logic and reason will find Ingersoll to be contradicting himself. In one passage, he wrote "Out on the intellectual sea there is room enough for every sail. In the intellectual air there is space enough for every wing." He didn't include that, as far as the intellectual air goes, Democratic wings were unfit for flight. He didn't write that, on the intellectual sea, there isn't enough space for non-Republican sails. In his heart, he believed in freedom of speech, but in his mind, he denied it. Again, "From the bottom of my heart I despise the publishers of obscene literature. Below them there is no depth of filth." [Robert Green Ingersoll, letter to the Boston Journal, on March 18, 1878.] I still hold admiration for Ingersoll and many of the values he held, but I hold in unrelenting contempt and disappointment that he opposed freedom of literature -- that he believed no minds should exist unless chains, too exist. It is sort of a matter of maturity. When we fall in love with someone, an idol or hero, and then we find something about them that stands in contradiction with our own values -- do will still stand by them or abandon them wholly? In these matters, we must disapprove of what they did that we abhor, but still concur that their positive qualities are worthy of admiration. Often times, when I debate Christians, they disbelieve in the qualities of rape, brutality, and murder, but when I show them how the Bible literally condones such actions, they are unwavering in their devotion to the vicious book.

     In this nation, this land of the United States, it is preached by every demagogue and believed by every patriot that the foundation for this country is a charter for freedom, a paper called the Constitution. The founders of this country are hailed as liberators. There is but one founder I hold admiration for: Thomas Paine, who has been the source of least inspiration by the government. Paine differed from the other founders: he didn't own slaves, he was imprisoned for opposing the Death Penalty, he was constantly exiled on account of his opinions. But it is still believed by people today that this image of Paine was shared by the other founders. This is but a treacherous lie. One law that was passed at the beginning of the Revolutionary War....

Resolved. That it be recommended to the several provincial assemblies or conventions or councils, or committees of safety, to arrest and secure every person in their respective colonies whose going at large, may, in their opinion, endanger the safety of the colony or the liberties of America. -- Journal of Congress, vol. 1, page 149.

     The Gestapo existed hundreds of years previously to development of National Socialism and the concentration camps of Germany. They were Americans. They received payment from the state. They were given authorization to detain any person of their liking. The idea that they didn't abuse their power is ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that their power was intrinsically cruel and brutal can hardly be denied, but I will not go into detail here on a defense of humaneness and compassion to those who defend the government's powers -- in this paper, it is my purpose to expound a short history of the struggle for the Right to Opinion. It would be highly unjust, though, to accuse the United States government of being the only patron of state terrorism. In every land that has had a ruler that was not the people, in every region where a man has said "I am lord" and those around him believed and supported him -- these places are not naive to the terrors of a police state. The U.S. government was no different than any other in its rise. To those, though, who believe that the above quoted passage may simply be a fluke of irrational thinking among leaders, I here quote again from the Journal of Congress...

Resolved. That it be recommended to the Executive powers of the several States, forthwith to apprehend and secure all persons who have in their general conduct and conversation evinced a disposition inimical to the cause of America, and that the persons so seized be confined in such places and treated in such manner as shall be consistent with their several characters and security of their persons -- Journal of Congress, vol. 2, P. 246.

     Permission and recommendation to "apprehend and secure" those "persons who have in their general conduct and conversation evinced a disposition inimical to the cause of America," -- this is the very definition of a police state. The founders of the USA didn't take any slow strides when it came to instituting a Totalitarianism. Every precept of this resolution by the government has the same roots as those governments which our schools teach against. There is hypocrisy and ignorance, attempting to keep the public in perpetual darkness about the past deeds of this horrific nation. No school text book writes of these lies, and why would they? The books about America are typically entitled such idiotic names, as "History of a Free Nation." Perhaps, though, some will think that two laws against liberty and truth are a fluke. I here quote again from the Journal of Congress...

"WHEREAS, The States of Pennsylvania and Delaware are threatened with an immediate invasion from a powerful army, who have already landed at the head of Chesapeake Bay; and whereas, The principles of sound policy and self-preservation require that persons who may be reasonably suspected of aiding or abetting the cause of the enemy may be prevented from pursuing measures injurious to the general weal."

Resolved. That the executive authorities of the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware be requested to cause all persons within their respective States, notoriously disaffected, to be apprehended, disarmed and secured until such time as the respective States think they may be released without injury to the common cause. -- Journal of Congress, vol. 2, p. 240.

     And so, every jail cell was filled, every home was searched, and no heart was left feeling more than dissatisfied with the government. This was done so that future leaders of the government could "spread their freedom and liberty" to such nations as Vietnam, Cuba, Colombia, and typically any nation that could harbor the vicious conditions of sweat factories and cheap labor. The government boasted so much of its track record, of liberty and justice, that it literally transformed into a Public Relations operation, only veiling the true agenda of the ruling class. There may be more doubts, though, to the questionable character of the founders of the United States. They may have passed these resolutions, they have made these foul laws, they may have done everything that would offend just men and women, but did they actually act on these laws? There was a man named David Franks, who was living in the colonies and wrote to England. His letter was apprehended and read by the authorities. He had written that the colonies were becoming disheartened and sick of the war. To this end, Congress passed a resolution that inasmuch as the said letter showed a disposition inimical to the liberties of the United States, Major General Arnold be requested to cause the said David Franks to be forthwith arrested, put in jail and confined till the further order of Congress. (Jour. Cong., vol. 3, P. 96 and 97.) Thomas Harriott was called before a Committee of Safety of New York -- such a light and happy way to put it, "Committee of Safety" -- , and there convicted of having refused to receive in payment the Continental bills, due to their dwindling worth. The Continental Congress passed the following resolution...

Resolved. That the General Committee of the city of New York be requested and authorized, and are hereby requested and authorized to direct that Thomas Harriott be committed to close jail in this city, there to remain until further orders of this Congress. -- Amer. Archives, 4th series, vol. 6, P. 1,344.

     I shall present another law passed by this government, allegedly "formed on freedom"...

"With respect to all such unworthy Americans as, regardless of their duty to their Creator, their country, and their posterity, have taken part with our oppressors, and, influenced by the hope or possession of ignominious rewards, strive to recommend themselves to the bounty of the administration by misrepresenting and traducing the conduct and principles of the friends of American liberty, and opposing every measure formed for its preservation and security."

Resolved. That it be recommended to the different assemblies, conventions and committees or councils of safety in the United Colonies, by the most speedy and effectual measures, to frustrate the mischievous machinations and restrain the wicked practices of these men. And it is the opinion of this Congress that they ought to be disarmed and the more dangerous among them either kept in safe custody or bound with sufficient sureties for their good behavior.

     A Totalitarian, Police State would be entirely incomplete unless there was access for the inquisitors to military and other forms of advanced terror. Another resolution passed by the United States government...

Resolved. That they be authorized to call to their aid whatever Continental troops stationed in or near their respective colonies that may be conveniently spared from their more immediate duties, and commanding officers of such troops are hereby directed to afford the said assemblies, conventions, committees or councils of safety, all such assistance in executing this resolution as they may require, and which, consistent with the good of the service may be supplied. -- Journal of Congress, vol. 1, P. 22.

     In this previous act, troops aren't only given the right to search and burn down houses -- they are ordered to by their commanding officers. Perhaps when the United States entered into a war to keep Vietnam as a colony, it wasn't the first time that the U.S. military acted upon such brutal and cruel methods. Perhaps, though, the words I am offering towards the US government, and the idea of government in general, are harsh, and perhaps sometimes even over emphasized. If there is one thing I believe it, it is that truth is better than a lie, compassion has more value in one day than tyranny will have in a century, and that freedom of opinion is essential for any person to know happiness. There is more I believe, but not enough to be expanded upon in such a short paper. I must say this, though: I believe in Anarchy. To this end, I mean that when it comes to the affairs of society, it ought to be governed by society -- not a select group of people, or person, no matter how they came to power, who control all of the people. An population-elected dictator varies little from a military-elected dictator. I believe that no law should come into action without the public voting it into action. I believe that a true leader will have no more influence than the argument he presents, and that in the end, after hearing the different speakers and different leaders on the matter, the public still vote for the decision of one matter over another. The right to vote on matters of concern to society -- a right I wish would be realized globally. Here, I quote two resolutions from the Continental Congress...

Resolved. That all such persons in Queens County afore-said as voted against sending deputies to the present Convention of New York, and named in a list of delinquents in Queens County, published by the Convention of New York, be put out of the protection of the United Colonists, and that all trade and intercourse with them cease; that none of the inhabitants of that county be permitted to travel or abide in any part of these United Colonies out of their said colony without a certificate from the Convention or Committee of Safety of the Colony of New York, setting forth that such inhabitant is a friend of the American cause, and not of the number of those who voted against sending deputies to the said Convention, and that such of the inhabitants as shall be found out of the said county without such certificate, be apprehended and imprisoned three months.

Resolved. That no attorney or lawyer ought to commence, prosecute or defend any action at law of any kind, for any of the said inhabitants of Queens County, who voted against sending deputies to the Convention as aforesaid, and such attorney or lawyer as shall countenance this revolution, are enemies to the American cause, and shall be treated accordingly. [Continental Congress on the 3d of January, 1776]

     In a just and fair society, voting means that when a matter of social significance comes to hand, the public votes for a resolution to this matter. The resolution that had the most votes is then adopted. In this process, in no way is the minority voting population ever punished for their opinion. In the election where George Bush came to power, would it seem fair to terrorize the majority, since most people in this nation voted against him, yet the military kept him in power? In the above quoted passage, the government tramples upon the ideal that is held most sacred to every freeman: the right to vote, without punishment of what they vote. Furthermore, to compound its crime upon humanity, the government has threatened any person who would defend those who voted with their conscience! If its jurisdiction was slightly wider, perhaps legislation would be passed against the dreams of these citizens, disallowing them from having any visual conception of something unAmerican or anti-American. I have no doubt that the government would breach into the conscience of every citizen, if only it were more practical. But alas, unfortunately, it must resort to the antiquated torture chambers. President Theodore Roosevelt, who once called the only Abolitionist founding father a "filthy atheist," once said...

"When compared with the suppression of anarchy every other question sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other. No immigrant is allowed to come to our shores if he is an anarchist; and no paper published here or abroad should be permitted circulation in this country if it propagates anarchist opinions." [President Theodore Roosevelt, Message To the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Regarding Transmission Through the Mails of Anarchistic Publications, April 9, 1908.]

     It is true. As we become more and more observant of the ways in which our leaders think and have thought, we become more and more revolted by the system of government established. The general law regarding Anarchy reads as follows...

240.15 Criminal anarchy. A person is guilty of criminal anarchy when (a) he advocates the overthrow of the existing form of government of this state by violence, or (b) with knowledge of its contents, he publishes, sells or distributes any document which advocates such violent overthrow, or (c) with knowledge of its purpose, he becomes a member of any organization which advocates such violent overthrow. Criminal anarchy is a class E felony.

     Oppression of political uprising is common among any ruling class. We find that it is not their intent to serve the community, but for the community to serve them. New York Penal Laws 160 and 161 (1902 criminal anarchy statute); upheld by US Supreme Court in 1925 in Gitlow versus New York (NY 268, US 652) "made it an offense to advocate, advise, or teach, by word or writing, 'the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence...'" Due to this law, it became a felony to join or support any group with an ideology of Anarchism. California Statute 281 (1919 criminal syndicalism law); upheld by US Supreme Court in 1926 in Whitney versus California (CA 274, US 357, 371). This law prohibited "advocating, teaching or aiding and abetting the commission of crime, sabotage..." for the purpose of "accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control, or effecting any political change." Essentially, those liberties which we cherished and loved so dearly, the government deems it necessary to strangle them. The types of laws enacted against Anarchists were also enacted against Communists and the Communist Party. To quote one law, one regulation that passed under the "banner of freedom"...

Sec. 841. - Findings and declarations of fact

"The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed." [Act Aug. 24, 1954, chapter 886, section 841.]

     Through a lengthy disposition, the powers that be decided that the Communist party and its members were a threat to the nation. Could it possibly be that Communism believes in a more equal distribution of income -- that workers should receive more pay (if not all the pay) from working, whereas the investors ought to receive none? Could it also possibly due to the fact that a large sum of political campaign contributions come from the wealthiest industries and companies, that legalized bribery is just an intrinsic concept to government? The following regulation was passed regarding Communists...

Sec. 844. - Determination by jury of membership in Communist Party, participation, or knowledge of purpose

"In determining membership or participation in the Communist Party or any other organization defined in this Act, or knowledge of the purpose or objective of such party or organization, the jury, under instructions from the court, shall consider evidence, if presented, as to whether the accused person:

(1)

"Has been listed to his knowledge as a member in any book or any of the lists, records, correspondence, or any other document of the organization;

(2)

"Has made financial contribution to the organization in dues, assessments, loans, or in any other form;

(3)

"Has made himself subject to the discipline of the organization in any form whatsoever;

(4)

"Has executed orders, plans, or directives of any kind of the organization;

(5)

"Has acted as an agent, courier, messenger, correspondent, organizer, or in any other capacity in behalf of the organization;

(6)

"Has conferred with officers or other members of the organization in behalf of any plan or enterprise of the organization;

(7)

"Has been accepted to his knowledge as an officer or member of the organization or as one to be called upon for services by other officers or members of the organization;

(8)

"Has written, spoken or in any other way communicated by signal, semaphore, sign, or in any other form of communication orders, directives, or plans of the organization;

(9)

"Has prepared documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, or any other type of publication in behalf of the objectives and purposes of the organization;

(10)

"Has mailed, shipped, circulated, distributed, delivered, or in any other way sent or delivered to others material or propaganda of any kind in behalf of the organization;

(11)

"Has advised, counseled or in any other way imparted information, suggestions, recommendations to officers or members of the organization or to anyone else in behalf of the objectives of the organization;

(12)

"Has indicated by word, action, conduct, writing or in any other way a willingness to carry out in any manner and to any degree the plans, designs, objectives, or purposes of the organization;

(13)

"Has in any other way participated in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of the organization;

(14)

"The enumeration of the above subjects of evidence on membership or participation in the Communist Party or any other organization as above defined, shall not limit the inquiry into and consideration of any other subject of evidence on membership and participation as herein stated." [Act Aug. 24, 1954, chapter 886, section 844.]

     There are two quotes I would like to compare. From this quoted passage, we have: "In determining membership or participation in the Communist Party... the jury... shall consider evidence... as to whether the accused person... has written, spoken or in any other way communicated by signal, semaphore, sign, or in any other form of communication orders, directives, or plans of the organization." This seems straight forward enough: it is illegal to speak if the words you are conjuring are sympathetic to the cause of Communism. Allow me to quote something else: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." It is a quote from the United States Constitution, whose writers were responsible for giving orders on detaining and arresting any person who rose suspicion of their character. It will be no difficulty, with the evidence I submitted, that the leaders of this nation do not, and have not, ever believed in any idea of the idea of freedom -- and if they did, they remained impotent in acting upon these convictions.

     To those who believe that we are no longer living in a Police State, that somehow magically, the idea of slavery which has been embedded in government just disappeared, it takes little more examining recent protests. On September 27, 2002, 649 of 1,500 and 2,000 protesters were arrested while protesting the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Several protesters had to go to the hospital for police brutality. Police outfitted in riot gear rounded up protesters at Freedom Plaza and forced them onto 6 buses, where they were taking to a DC Holding Center. "These are people trying to protest against a system that represses people around the world, and their response is repression on the streets here too," said Flora Little, 38, from Richmond, Virginia. [Source: "DC Police Crack Down on Anti-Capitalist Protests," Sep 27, 8:38 pm ET, By Laura MacInnis, Reuters.] In many of these incidents, if a protester is carrying an address book, it is apprehended -- and I'm sure it's purely for non-terrorist reasons. I do not need to draw correlations between these events and those which took place to the Fascist countries of Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Russia. It is already obvious that the government is intrinsically opposed to the interests of the people. What the United States government does is horrifying, not because it is identical to the actions of the Nazi storm troopers, but rather because it is cruel, brutal, and vicious -- holding no remorse for the stockpile of bodies, the casualties in a losing war for freedom.

     Perhaps, in this essay, I expressed too many anti-government sentiments, but this were only my natural reactions to censorship. And perhaps it is quite true that censorship is greatest in those nations led by a leader, and least in those nations led by the people. Whatever the case, I shall state it once more: I believe in a person's right to speak and think as they wish, regardless of the opinions of other men. I believe that the mind is a sacred thing, deserving of rights. To be able to choose any author to read -- this has been one right that has been infringed upon countless times. It seems almost as though it is not just banning books that would stir political unrest, but with the bombardment of poor quality music and literature that are advertised, it seems that inspiration and creativity are looked down upon -- that anything that can give one's soul a glimpse at liberty and happiness is dangerous for the public. I deny this. In the constellation of history, the star I gaze upon with hope is the one of liberty. To this end, I will defend every person's right to speak and think as their mind directs them. The ability to capture your soul's words in to a song is a rare one, so I end this paper with the lyrics to a song...

"When you sleep
No one is homeless
When you sleep
You can't feel the hunger
When you sleep
No one is lonely in a dream

"Without classes
Without nations

"When you sleep

"She sang to me
With open arms

"And one night
can last forever
And if you asked her
she never let go"

Against Me!, "8 Full Hours of Sleep"

Punkerslut,


Punkerslut
join the punkerslut.com
mailing list!

Punkerslut
copyleft notice and
responsibility disclaimer