Of Miranda And The First Amendment

I find it curious how those in society today make such an effort to silence their critics, or adversaries. Anyone who has spent any meaningful time in law enforcement will tell you just how counterproductive that is. As always, truth is the great liberator. That is why our founders were so adamant about protecting the freedom of expression up until the point where it infringes upon the life, liberty or property of another. Miranda v. Arizona provided an extra level of protection for those too dimwitted to avoid violating their own Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination through the free exercise of their First Amendment rights.

As is often the case, Hollywood's depictions of suspect questioning are far from reality. Commonly the best information is derived not through the tenacious inquiries and rambling threats from the interrogator, but from the patience to allow the suspect to freely speak and fully answer questions. As individuals feel increasingly comfortable they allow their inhibitions to leave and will themselves provide a more clear picture of who they are. You see, the longer you allow someone to speak, inevitably more bits of truth appear. Those with patience and attentiveness to detail are able to see through all the irrelevant information to hear those few words that paint a clear picture of the character of the individual to whom they speak. The words used in situations are very important and must not be disregarded.

If truth of content and character is found through allowing your adversary to freely express themselves, then why do so many people try to silence their critics through dismissal, name calling and other techniques of distraction. History shows that those who try to silence critics, are at best fearful of facts and driven by emotion or at worst fearful of a larger conceptual truth and devoid of reason. If a critic is not being truthful, present facts on the topic and watch how quickly the reasoned debate devolves into name calling. Allow them to speak and simply point out there inconsistencies. In the arena of public debate it is always those true to their conceptual beliefs and philosophy that are able to remain consistent.

Evidence of reactions described above:
Nancy Pelosi's can beat'em join'em, try to beat'em again when they realize you are a fraud strategy

Rob Reiner's pseudo-intellectual name calling strategy that perfectly depicts how the progressives reached their current majority

Then candidate Obama's candid moment that he would like everyone to forget.

Maxine Waters accidentally letting truth escape Progressivism, Socialism, tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to.

David Axelrod's criteria for justifying slander