Gabriel of Urantia SPIRITUAL ACTIVIST
Slander and Free Speech—What Did Our Founding Fathers Really Mean When They Wrote In The Amendment Of Free Speech?
I do not think our Founding Fathers meant “free speech” to mean use slander, misrepresentation, character defamation, bigotry, and prejudice in general. Contrary to that, the true ideal of free speech is to prevent all communication that is based on prejudice of any kind. The Founding Fathers and their ancestors had suffered in Europe from false accusations and misrepresentation by the hands of the then 1% and by the enemies of truth and goodness.
Wherever evil gets a hand to discredit truly good persons, it is done through the media of the day. With modern technology and the Internet, the invention of invisible but yet ever-present cowardly, false accusers—who slander the people they disagree with in the name of free speech—has become a common thing, thanks to the misrepresentation of free speech by Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, and other social media.
The writers of The Constitution included free speech to bring to the table intelligent dialogue and a forum to listen to the opposing views of others on various subjects, not for character assassination. Usually the characters of individuals were not even mentioned in the dialogues and philosophical debates of the past, and only the topics of discussion were presented.
Today, all too often, the characters of persons are lambasted and the actual differences of opinion and other ideas are not even presented, because the person that is tearing down the character of the one they disagree with does not present the subject matter.
Even the various avenues of news media have done the same thing, with shows like Dateline and other tabloid-type news programs that are imbalanced and focus on presenting a slanted perspective (often negative and attacking) of a person or a group, without presenting all sides of the situation or the actual intellectual property or the nuts and bolts of the argument.
Politics has become rampant with this kind of misrepresentation. Politics has always had a dirty bent to it in that area, but modern political dialogue has become downright iniquitous. The Office of the President has been scarred in America, due to the allowance of the assassination of character and the continual perpetuation of falsehoods.
As was seen in the last Presidential race, “fake news” became the norm and was effective in distorting facts and misrepresenting candidates. This has scarred the reputations of men and women who have the potential to be great statespersons and public servants.
Many good men and women have been prevented from running for the Office of the President because they were slandered through distortion of facts and twisting of truth. There have been Presidential candidates who were discredited by exaggerating their human flaws and indicating they were much worse than what they were—taking a little dirt on someone and making a huge mud ball, making “sin” out of mere “error.” This is misuse and misinterpretation of free speech!
It is much easier to see the flaws in someone on the opposing side than to see one’s own, or political party’s, similar “sins.” What hypocrisy! Jesus said to “take the log out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck from someone else’s eye.”
When yellow journalism takes over, which is more common than not, a good man or woman is crushed under the tide of “everything is allowed in politics,” or certain persons are allowed to be unjustly accused because they are “public persons,” or movie stars and celebrities are allowed no privacy because of “belonging to the public,” which gives credence for the inappropriate and often abusive interference of paparazzi. It is now common understanding that this kind of paparazzi behavior is the cause of the accident that killed Princess Diana. How many truly wonderful people will have to pay the price of being wonderful (that can be deadly) in the name of “free press”?
Journalism today has become riddled with “anything-goes” journalism, which is really yellow journalism rather than true journalism. Yellow journalism is meant to incite fear, distrust, ridicule, hatred, and so on towards specific individuals or groups of individuals, including entire political parties, religions, and nations. The character of a person or group of persons is the content of the story rather than a message about ideas and ideals. The value of the message is lost in the verbal attack of the so-called journalist against a person or group of people.
Vindictive, jealous, and resentful people—most who are not even journalists—use the Internet and Facebook in a destructive way, often against people they are jealous of, be it a movie star or the neighbor next door. And where Facebook and other Internet social media outlets should protect individuals from all walks of life (particularly individuals who are social change agents trying to make a difference in this world), they allow misrepresentation against the very individuals who have the courage to present ideals and ideas that may challenge the status quo of self-serving values.
The ones who are putting their behinds on the line for the sake of others are practicing true free speech. These true change agents talk about the issues, not about the people. Slanderers are allowed to call people fat or skinny or make fun of their big noses or other parts of their bodies—as if any of that has anything to do with the soul of the person inside.
Today too much credit is given to those who are considered “beautiful,” and if you do not look like a beauty queen or Prince Charming, you are not worthy. Some of the greatest minds in history were not beautiful, nor handsome, nor tall, nor rich (for that matter). People were more accepted in times past for their fine intellect and wisdom.
Once the media labels you any of the names that are used to discredit a person, you cannot get on the radio or television. If you are a musician, you cannot get a record contract or get your music played on the air. This is how it has been for centuries. But in contemporary history, it is worse now, since the advent of the use of the Internet as a tool of disinformation that anyone can use.
The name of the game today is just that: disinformation. Wonderful activists, through their music—like Joan Baez and Bob Dylan—in the last 15 years or so could not become stars today, for they would be discredited long before they were able to get a record contract.
It truly does take someone with a lot of money today to run for President, in order to counteract (with positive press and a team of media experts) the negativity coming against them. The name of the game today is who has the most money, best public relations experts, and media sources.
Today we live in a world of upside-down values—where good is called evil and evil is called good, where the Universal Laws of the Divine Creator, and those who honor them, are looked upon as outdated and even silly. In this manner, men and women who stand up for moral codes of ethics are kept out of mainstream media by the degradation of their characters. These people of integrity are made out to be religious fanatics, and sometimes even called cultists.
It is becoming more difficult to find a place in America for thought that is alternative to materialism and self-seeking ease. Free-thinkers have become few and far between. Most individuals fall under the pressure of “anything goes” and only relativity is the norm, with no absolutes of right and wrong within a code of ethics.
Great men and women in the history of the planet—from the ancient wisdom keepers of all continents from the B.C. era, from India, Syria, and Egypt to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle up to the times of Jesus and onwards to those wisdom keepers of the A.D. era from all corners of the world—understood that there has to be moral absolutes that guide the changing times. When men and women of true greatness are discredited by the press of their day, they can be unrighteously imprisoned (as was done with the late Nelson Mandela) or even assassinated (as with John and Robert Kennedy, Stephen Biko of South Africa, Ken Saro-Wiwa of Nigeria, and Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan).
Perhaps if The Constitution of the United States would have been interpreted correctly, in the area of free speech, then men like John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy would not have been assassinated and would have been protected rather than misrepresented by much of the press under the disguise of free speech. In each one of their social movements, the handwriting was on the wall, due to the character assassination of these great souls.
Many wonderful advocates for peace—like Father Philip Berrigan and his brother Daniel Berrigan—would have been more protected and not been imprisoned and their names scarred, if we would have stronger laws against misrepresentation of character under the banner of free speech.
Recently those of us within our parent organization, Global Community Communications Alliance (GCCA), decided together to come off of Facebook as individuals because Facebook continues to allow misrepresentation of myself, under the guise of free speech, to be called a “cult” leader, and much worse. Facebook has allowed a false public Gabriel of Urantiacult page and imposter account Tony Delevan to remain online, which have nothing to do with me or my teachings and beliefs, though their purpose is to appear to represent me. To make a statement against this violation of free speech, we chose to get off of social media and Facebook.
In the name of free speech, in 1997 Dateline was legally allowed—with their sky-high building of attorneys—to misrepresent those in GCCA as blind followers in a cult, with me as the cult leader. Since then, for the last twenty years we in GCCA have been misunderstood by those (including some family and friends) who believe just about everything the media spews out. Most people do not understand how modern technology cuts and edits to present the media’s slant in order to sell newspapers, magazines, etc. and get television ratings. Once again, this is all done in the name of “free speech,” with laws that protect them.
In the name of free speech, there are some individuals of the wide road of “anything-goes” mentality—rather than the “road-less-traveled” choice of living within divine pattern—who attempt to discredit Global Community Communications Alliance simply because our values are different than theirs.
Only by the grace of God have we been able to survive as a community and a team of global change agents. But it has been a nightmare of suffering for all of us in many different ways, including losing children to a parent who left the community and was willing to use the misrepresentation of Dateline and other media against us.
We have even lost some of our sons and daughters to the world of “anything-goes” morality, because we choose to abide by The Commandments of God and adhere to higher moral ethics, including celibacy until in a loving, committed relationship, like a type of marriage. And this same scenario happens with children who leave their spiritual parents in all religions and walks of life and who are supported by the existing status-quo society when they accuse their spiritual families.
Soon a new world is coming for those who believe in the return of The Promised One. In Christianity, it is Jesus Christ. In other religions, The Promised One is called many names, but all believe that this world is soon to pass away and a new one of worldwide peace and well-being will replace it.
Join me on May 5, 2018 for the Spiritualution Concert, where people of all religions will come to Camp Avalon in Sedona, Arizona and pray together for the coming of The Promised One, to bring true peace and justice to all the peoples of the planet.