I was discussing with one of my good friends some things that had accured relatively close to the time of the conversation. Somehow, during the course of the conversation we devised the following theorem.
Most Americans are well aware of the first amendment, and they take it to mean that they can say whatever they darn well please and not expect to see any negativisms come back to them. Well, lets not get into that. Anyway, it states that we have the right to free speech.
Now murder is widely accepted as the unjust taking of a human life other than your own. But who determines whether or not the killing is justified. I mean, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder shouldn't justification be too. Therefore, if justification is in the eye of the beholder, then the murderer, from here on known as the killer, would have sole power to state whether or not their actions were justified. The freedom of speech along with other freedoms makes it possible for an individual to justify their actions, and no one can deny the authenticity of their justification.
Any person who kills another person clearly has a reason to do so. Whether or not that reason is justified by society is not the case, the killer justified the action by having a reason to kill the person, thereby making the killing justified. Remember, murder is the taking of another human life without justification, so if the killing is always justified there is no murder.
This means that the First Amendment nullifies all murders and the system as a whole is the cause of its own demise.
