Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Threats to Free Speech

Perhaps you haven't been following along lately, but if you have you may have notice that the Lefties are having an issue with the 1st Amendment. UC-Berkeley once the hotbed of demanding free speech has now taken an ironic turn to demanding that no one should be allowed to speek if what they might say might challenge them in any way. Even going so far as to stage violent protests to make their point. The "heckler's veto" has taken on ominous turn causing the administrators to demand the cancellation of too many speakers almost all deemed "conservative". Many college campuses are following in their footsteps.

When Ann Coulter was hired to speak at Berkeley by some Republican student organization, the threats of violence were so widespread, the administration cancelled her appearance. Now I don't really like Coulter, but seriously, this has gotten way out of hand.

Howard Dean the Scream joined the fray by announcing this weekend in a tweet that "hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".

Of course many disagreed, but disturbingly just too many people in this country think he is right. But as many times as this one question has been asked -
"Define "hate speech" and who gets to decide?"
- no one has ever answered.

I am a 1st Amendment absolutist. I believe that the Nazis, BLM, KKK, Louis Farrakhan, Westboro Baptists, whatever et al. should all be allowed to speak freely and do it in the full view of all without masks or hoods. They need and we should demand that they be allowed to show exactly who they are. To do otherwise diminishes our Constitutional rights. And I have the right to disagree loudly, but I don't have the right to stop them from speaking.

And apparently, Bernie Sanders agrees with me - Bernie Sanders RIPS Millennials Trying To Shut Up Ann Coulter

As one person tweeted:

If the anti-"hate speech" crowd really wanted to serve a purpose for the greater good, try demanding civility from all sides, not forced silence for those with whom they disagree. Vigorous debate and discussion should be encouraged, not denied.

It's truly just depressing.

11 comments:

Anthony said...

Great write-up. Here is a similar piece about a group of leftist thugs named the Black Bloc.

https://m.townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2017/04/23/while-msm-focuses-on-insignificant-altright-they-should-be-all-over-the-black-bloc-n2315783.
If we may, let us go over some concepts regarding the Black Bloc:

It is not a tactic; it is an organized group. Ask yourself, how did all those people meet up for the protests, in Berkeley, Seattle, Middlebury and D.C.? Someone is getting the news out regarding where and when to meet. Those people are called ring leaders.
There is no justification for the violence they perpetrate. As despicable as you may think Richard Spencer is, we do not solve our issues in our civilized society by sucker punching people in the face. They also were responsible for Professor Allison Stanger ending up in a neck brace after Charles Murray’s March 2nd speech was cancelled at Middlebury College.
The group purports to fight against fascism. That is a recurring theme in their activities. Somehow, they miss the irony of the comparison to the Nazi Black Shirts.
The fact that they hide their faces is reminiscent of another group on the scene today – ISIS. The fact that they do not have the guts to show themselves in public would allow some of their antagonists to call them cowards. This is how the KKK operated, but hidden behind white garb as opposed to black. The Black Bloc has not raised itself to the violent level of the other two groups, however.

tryanmax said...

If you haven't heard of Jordan B Peterson, U of Toronto, I suggest you look him up. He's been embroiled in a free-speech debate in Canada for some time now, and he brings a lot of smarts to this topic. He's done extensive studying in the area of how totalitarian regimes have arisen and identifies a lot of those patterns coming around again via leftist suppression and redefinition of speech. How this meets up with his professional field, psychology, is utterly fascinating.

BevfromNYC said...

Tryanmax: I will check him out.

Meanwhile, here is just one more reasoned argument about so how very wrong Howard Dean really is...

LINK

According to Howard Dean, Berkeley need not claim its speaker policy is content-neutral as applied to Coulter because whatever she might say is categorically excluded from the "First Amendment's protection. Dean cannot really explain why that is, but he seems to think speech can be censored as an "incitement to violence" whenever people might respond to it violently—a policy that gives bullies across the political spectrum the power to dictate who may speak and what they may say. Dean not only thinks that's a fine idea; he claims it has been blessed by the Supreme Court."

BevfromNYC said...

Anthony - And that is what is so scary. They cannot see how truly fascist that is! This whole concept that if you incite me to want to harm you for something you have said (not done), then you must stop or I will/can beat you up if you don't. So, if it is inciting me to want to harm them, they all need to stop. This is what makes this so scary. All they have to do is invoke the "Snowflake/safe room" defense! Even more frightening is that at least one professor flunked a student because what the student wrote in a paper "triggered" her. Whaaaa?

Two can play at this game! Let's make a list of people we would prefer to stop talking 'cause they make us think violent thoughts:

1. Michael Moore

AndrewPrice said...

It is absolutely shocking on the one hand.

But on the other, I have long seen that liberals do not have the principles they espouse. They bend their principles to protect those they like and strike those they don't.

As for the fascist thing, liberalism and fascism and socialism and communism are all just about degrees and the color of the shirt.

Darski Cutler said...

I found this book very intersting. SJW's A;ways Lie

https://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1493149153&sr=1-1&keywords=sjws+always+lie

tryanmax said...

Bev! Bev!

The term 'snowflake' is insulting to actual snowflakes.

Snowflakes are unique and fleeting.

SJW's are ugly and won't go away.

BevfromNYC said...

Yes, Tryanmax, but if we insist they are "snowflakes" then they will think they are and go away. Maybe "weather event" appropriation can work to our advantage!

Critch said...

The only thing international socialists and nationalist socialists were fighting about was the color of their armbands. These twerps don't even know what they are....and they don't realize they're idiots..

Koshcat said...

I just heard tonight that The NY Times is refusing to use the term "female genital mutilation" because it is a culturally loaded term.

BevfromNYC said...

Well, the bad news is the heckling fascists have won - Coulter cancelled her speech at Berkeley today. I guess they just threatened the burn Berkeley down, so the Admin decided that their jobs were more imporant that the 1st Amendment.

Post a Comment