To Protect and Serve…

In the U.S. we have a long tradition of citizenry, police, and military. For many years the citizenry has had distinct semantic categories for these social functions. However, I think there is evidence that at some levels these distinctions are merging. While not all citizens agree that the merger is useful, it is nevertheless happening at a political and managerial level. Terms like Law Enforcement extend beyond the traditional roles of police and bring the police into a larger strategically orchestrated social movement. In addition to this some of the traditional imagery surrounding police has changed. While it does raise many questions about the order and structure of society in the U.S. one question which seems pertinent to ask is: Who is protected and Who is served?

LA Police Shootings

More Traditional Police imagery.

Los Angeles Police Depertment manhunt for murder suspect

More modern police imagery.

Armed police officers search vehicles driving south in Yucaipa during the manhunt for fugitive former Los Angeles police officer Dorner

More modern police imagery.

Imagery is only one way to assess the conflation of semantic concepts. Another way to look at it would be to consider concepts and terminology of detainees and prisoners as those concepts are practiced by Law Enforcement operators. A look at the U.S. Army's Internment and Resettlement manual's terminology found in FM 3-39.40 available at http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/19_Series_Collection_1.html or locally [PDF]

On terrorism and gun control

This week the BBC published a piece about an ongoing discussion between Piers Morgan and a Texan who has called for his deportation. The Texan says that Piers is fighting against the constitution by fighting for gun control (and therefore should be deported as non-national fighting to undermine U.S. laws). Piers responds saying that his voice should be protected under freedom of speech. I want to ask: But should it? I guess there are several ways this could be interpreted. One of them would be to consider if Piers is a British subject and not a citizen of the US and therefore because he is not a U.S. Citizen that U.S. laws do not apply to non-citizens and therefore he is not protected by U.S. freedom of speech protections. At which time, if he were deported he could continue his propaganda media campaign from the UK and be just as vocal and active because his role is and instrument and visibility is global in nature not geographically bound - he is a voice of internet proportions. But deportation is an official statement, not just by the institution of government but also by the current ruling party in the U.S. Piers' position seems to be in line with that party's position. So, expecting actions like a deportation from the current party would probably not be an expectation well rewarded. If Piers is indeed a US citizen then his personal voice is protected by the first amendment.
However another way to look at the situation is: is he in this capacity speaking from his personal capacity? Or is he speaking from the capacity of the organization from which he is hired? If he is hired to say these things, that is speaking from his professional capacity, then is he still protected under the first amendment, if the corporation is a US corporation? For that matter is anything said using a US company's communication platform a US concern. --> so a use of Twitter or YouTube is that freedom of speech even if it is used by a person of non-US citizenship?