Another view on a prior post - should Bradley Manning supporters be fired from Federal Government positions?

The piece below is fictional - kind of.

During the day, George Madison works as a small business specialist at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), dealing with companies which sell handcuffs, ammunition, guns, and other items for agents of the agency. Away from the office, Madison runs a Web site called Detention on the Horizon (DHO), where he says mass detention in the U.S. is imminent. He calls for mass civil disobedience, immediate freedom for Bradley Manning, dropping of all charges against Edward Snowden, and the “cleaning” of “red and blue statist-loving Constitutional traitors.” The latter group includes President Obama (“a treasonous secretive spy”), John Boehner, Dianne Feinstein, and Larry Ellison, among others.

So what would the reaction be to the story of George Madison?

Obviously, unanimous calls for the Department of Homeland Security to fire him immediately.

"But Madison didn't break any laws," you may say.

It doesn't matter whether he broke any laws. He has promoted controversial views that are unacceptable to a significant number of people, and the Department of Homeland Security can't have employees who are condoning the acts of traitors. Fire him now!

"That is unfair!" you loudly proclaim. "George Madison is exercising his Consitutional right of free speech! As long as he does not break any laws himself, he should be allowed to share his personal views without interference from the Federal Government!"

Think about that argument for a moment.

Now re-read my earlier post about a man who works as a small business specialist at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and runs a Web site called War on the Horizon.

A man who has been subject to unanimous calls for his immediate firing.

Yes, I know that Ayo Kimathi, using his alias of Irritated Genie, has said things about whites, blacks who like whites, and gays, and that he apparently (again, I couldn't get to his website to confirm) advocates the killing of whites.

But has he actually killed any whites?

Meanwhile, have the actions of Manning or Assange resulted in the deaths of anyone? Apparently not - but they COULD have, in the same way that Kimathi's views COULD inspire someone to kill a cracker or an Uncle Tom.

So if it's OK to support Bradley Manning, even though his actions could have potentially resulted in killings, why isn't it OK to support Kimathi, even though his actions could potentially lead to killings?

As you're mulling over that, consider Ned Hardy's recent post entitled "Why You Should Care About Your Privacy Even If You Have Nothing To Hide." (Thanks to Steven Hodson for sharing this.)

Now write a private e-mail about Ayo Kimathi, Bradley Manning, or those two hot dogs you ate for lunch.

See what happens.