[edit] If people are ignoring the 8th Amendment can we ignore their 1st amendment ? [/edit]
Speaking of the 1st Amendment, I couldn't help but have a thought regarding it reading through this thread...
I've been here on NeoGAF for quite a while now and something I've noticed during that time is that people really love the First Amendment here and naturally so, since it bestows some incredible freedoms to the people of the United States. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom of religion; all great stuff.
But I've also noticed something else in regards to the Freedom of Speech clause in particular--the idea that in order for anyone to truly have Freedom of Speech, we must also defend the Freedom of Speech of the worst of us. That is to say, the only way that any given individual can truly have freedom of speech is if we also defend the freedom of speech of racists, neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc. As if we were to curtail their freedom of speech in any way, it would be an attack on the very concept of freedom of speech itself. They do not agree with what they have to say, but they will defend to the death their right to say it. Y'know, Voltaire--that seems to have become a pretty core American principle, as far as the 1st goes.
And people don't even flinch or hesitate to say that whatsoever. It's what they believe at their core. They know that those people are terrible, but they thoroughly believe that the true cost of freedom involves making sure that even the worst of us have those same freedoms, as they are human rights and know no such distinction and must be defended in all cases or not at all.
So, that being the case... why is it so hard to extend the same principle to cases like this? It's so easy for people to invoke Voltaire to defend the speech of the KKK and neo-nazi groups, so why is it so hard for people to extend the same principle to situations like this one? To similarly not agree in any way with the actions of criminals, their past behavior or misdeeds, but nonetheless similarly defend to the death their basic rights the same as anyone else? That just as with freedom of speech, rights are rights regardless of who holds them and to defend the best of us you must defend the worst of us as well?
Of course, yes, it's unfair that the general populace doesn't also have these rights. But that's no reason to take them away from those that already have them, as that doesn't fix that or change it any way, but rather to lobby to expand them to make sure that everyone indeed does have what should have been their's all along. To do otherwise is just lashing out, understandably so perhaps but nonetheless benefiting no one and in no way making the world a better place. The only sensible way forward is to expand and make sure others are able to get the same treatment, not to take it away from others who already have it.
But in any case, I'm just really stricken with the parallels to the 1st Amendment discussions. Because whenever those come up, the majority seems to have no real problems admitting that the 1st covers the free speech of racists, neo-nazis, etc, and accept that that's the price to pay for everyone to truly to be able to have those rights. So it just fascinates and kind of baffles me that people have difficulty applying the same concept to the 8th Amendment. If it's so easy to defend the rights of the KKK and white supremacist and neo-nazi groups and the like to say the most hateful stuff imaginable, it should similarly be simple to understand why the government, why the State has the duty to care for those in its care, regardless of how terrible of people they are in much the same way.
I can only assume that that's because that the State currently does not currently have a duty to extend that same care to anyone else, which is truly unfortunate and should not be the case at all, but nonetheless removing that care from those who are fortunate enough to have it does not change that in any way and the text of the 8th Amendment remains what it is, just as the 1st. That being the case, the disconnect between the two really does kinda fascinate me as to how far the principles people use to defend the 1st Amendment even including the rights of neo-nazi and white supremacist groups to say what they really really goes and how truly they really internalize the sentiment of defending the rights of even the lowest of low of society and doing the right thing simply because it's right and not because it's easy.