One of the most frustrating aspects for the free speech community these days is when anti-free speech advocates claim to be champions of free speech before calling for censorship. That was the case last year when Barack Obama bizarrely called himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist” before calling for sweeping censorship and media controls over expression. This week, it was NYU Communications professor Gabrielle Gambrell who prefaced a call for censorship by assuring the audience on Dr. Phil that “I am extremely in favor of the First Amendment.” It turns out that she loves free speech as much as a glutton loves his lunch. She proceeded to carve up free speech as an impediment to self-improvement through censorship.
Gambrell gleefully agreed that people should be fired for expressing “harmful” thoughts and that “we have seen things that happen when social media is not censored.” People should be punished, in her view, when they express thoughts that “can hurt people, where there’s negative intent, there should be censorship.” That includes people deemed to be racist or homophobic:
“In some instances where I see viral videos where someone is clearly racist or homophobic or anything nasty and then the video goes viral, they lose their job, I’m like ‘score’ because that person does not deserve to have this title which can impact certain communities, they need to work on themselves.”
She added a note that sounded like a pitch for people to embrace censorship like the latest self-help fad. It turns out that it can be good for those who are fired and silenced: “What I do truly believe in is redemption. There’s opportunity to learn, to be better, to not harm people.”
She is not the first to make such a pitch. Facebook even tried a massive creepy commercial campaign to convince the public to embrace censorship.
Likewise, other academics have voiced pro-censorship views (though they later denied it). Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods declared that “China was right” on the need for censorship of the Internet. They declared that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”
Many on the left are seeking to preserve censorship by surrogate on social media and seeking to prevent the publication of books by those with whom they disagree, including a book by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. With corporate censorship threatened, many leaders like Hillary Clinton are turning to good old-fashioned state censorship.
Indeed, President Joe Biden has questioned how citizens will know the truth without censors framing what the truth is on social media and the Internet.
Gambrell is only the latest cheerful advocate of censorship, seeking to convince citizens that limiting their free speech is a good thing even for those punished for their views. Indeed, being fired for harmful thoughts in her view is character building, almost therapeutic.
Of course, I find professors advocating censorship to be “negative” and “harmful.” Would it be therapeutic for me to launch a campaign to fire Gambrell?
Of course not. It would be an attack on her free speech rights and further reduce the diversity of thought on our campuses. Yet, the left has adopted these rationalizations for their intolerance and orthodoxy.
Many on the left still cannot accept that they are the new censors, the intolerant voices seeking to silence opposing views. They have become the new McCarthyites in seeking to block publications, purge faculties, and control speech. Yet, that is hardly a virtual signaling status. The only option is to pretend that it is not censorship to censor people or that censorship is actually a good and wholesome thing.
Fortunately, the multimillion dollar campaign by Facebook did not produce a call from the public to be censored by their corporate overlords. Rather, not only are users signing up in record numbers, but a recent poll shows a majority of Americans “support Elon Musk’s ongoing efforts to change Twitter to a more free and transparent platform.”
It turns out that the pitch of “a better life through less freedom” is not selling well with the public. However, it clearly is the rage on many faculties.
people like this supposedly “educated” woman, are ignorant of the history of censorship. Its use by tyrants to control, and abuse the masses.
Censorship is about power OVER the people. No surprise academics are so keen to advocate to silence other. Others that challenge those in power. Sadly for the this women, she is unaware academia has shed lots of its power as as unassailable arbiters of fact.
Gabrielle Gambrell would do herself well to look up CK Chesterton. One of his quotes comes to mind in this debate
To paraphrase
‘Don’t tear down a fence until you can explain why it exists. When you can explain why it exists, I’ll allow you to destroy it.’
Gabrielle Gambrell can’t tell you why the 1st amendment exists
“One of the most frustrating aspects for the free speech community these days is when anti-free speech advocates claim to be champions of free speech before calling for censorship.”
“Free speech community”? There’s a community? Who knew there was a community? If there is, they need a community watch.
Anyway, at least as frustrating as that, if not more so is when people or websites pretend to be part of the “free speech community” while COVERTLY engaging in censorship instead of openly calling for it, such as at the NY Post just this morning, where the worst, sneakiest. most-virulent form of censorship was being practiced — shadow banning.
A few hours ago I posted a couple of comments which instantly published — or so I thought — until some time passed and they’d gotten no responses — no upvotes and no replies — which is fairly unusual for me at THAT site, where the comment section is a troll-infested snark swamp. So I initiated the investigative procedure, logging out and then hunted up the comments that had gotten no responses, and sure enough they weren’t there. Then I logged back in, returned to where the comments should have been but weren’t a moment before, and they were there again.
I could see my comments while logged in and the website knew it was me on the comment page, but when I logged out and was anonymous, all the other comments on the page were still there, but mine were gone — shadow banned.
So it wasn’t just censorship like happens when you violate a rule and a comment is removed and replaced by a statement such as “this comment was deleted” or “this comment violated our policy.” It was censorship without letting me OR ANYONE ELSE know that there was censorship happening, and leaving me to keep posting comments assuming that others could see them — this at a supposedly republican-leaning website.
So what’s happening is that people are being politically propagandized to believe that it’s only democrats or leftist (if theres a difference anymore) that engage in censorship, while their supposed ideological adversaries do it too, but worse, by allowing people to think that they’re not doing because they make a big noise about being for free speech.
Moral: Trust nobody — especially those who would lull you into trusting them by squawking about what they and others of their “community” stand for.
“Gambrell gleefully agreed that people should be fired for expressing “harmful” thoughts and that “we have seen things that happen when social media is not censored.” People should be punished, in her view, when they express thoughts that “can hurt people, where there’s negative intent, there should be censorship.”
********************************
Telling on herself. Wonder when this Einstein here will realize she’s expressing “negative” thoughts with similar intent and thus under her rules ought to be censored. Gambrell’s a new wave thinker who feels strongly both ways. The schism is damn funny — if she weren’t in such a privilged position of power.
I often wondered why all-powerful Rome fell (even after reading Gibbon). Gambrell and people like her provide the answer – chronic, widespread, fatal, irony-blind stupidity among the ruling elite was/is the culprit.
Mespo,
Funny you should mention Rome. I read this from Lew Rockwell this morning. Should be an intersting series.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/01/doug-casey/decline-of-empire-parallels-between-the-u-s-and-rome/
This paragraph shows how far we’ve fallen. seems amazing we can fall further.
“The U.S. reached its peak relative to the world, and in some ways its absolute peak, as early as the 1950s. In 1950 this country produced 50% of the world’s GNP and 80% of its vehicles. Now it’s about 21% of world GNP and 5% of its vehicles. It owned two-thirds of the world’s gold reserves; now it holds one-fourth. It was, by a huge margin, the world’s biggest creditor, whereas now it’s the biggest debtor by a huge margin. The income of the average American was by far the highest in the world; today it ranks about eighth, and it’s slipping.”
Jim22,
While long, that was a very interesting read.
I would argue with this point,
“The public will want a general partly because the military is now by far the most trusted institution of U.S. society.”
A recent poll showed a decline in the public’s trust in the military.
The military is also having issues with recruitment and retention.
Historically, military recruits were made up primarily by traditional conservative military families. They are not showing up to the recruiting centers. They are not interested in the new-woke military.
Some officers have noted wokeism is weakening unit readiness, cohesion, and discipline.
I think that contributes to the decline of modern Rome.
Thank you.
UpstateFarmer,
Interesting about that military stats. I guess it makes sense though. Now they don’t even want you to say, “Yes Sir!”. We are falling behind right in front of our eyes.
In 1950 a good baseline though?
Keep in mind that much of the world at the time was still in ruins.
“ Gambrell gleefully agreed that people should be fired for expressing “harmful” thoughts and that “we have seen things that happen when social media is not censored.” People should be punished, in her view, when they express thoughts that “can hurt people, where there’s negative intent, there should be censorship.” That includes people deemed to be racist or homophobic:”
Turley actually agrees with this sentiment. He made that quite clear in his last column about the 9th circuit.
“ The denial of free speech should be treated as seriously as other abuses. There should be consequences for administrators who discriminate on the basis on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or political viewpoints. This was a denial of First Amendment rights that should warrant some adverse action for those responsible in the school district.”
While Turley is only talking about administrators it does not change the fact that he is in full support of holding them accountable and should face some sort of punishment. Discrimination CAN be and is harmful. It has a negative intent.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/01/04/ninth-circuit-rules-that-middle-school-teachers-maga-hat-was-protected-speech/#more-198749
The NYC professor is pointing out a simple fact about free speech that even Turley acknowledges AND agrees with. There are consequences for exercising it.
“ In some instances where I see viral videos where someone is clearly racist or homophobic or anything nasty and then the video goes viral, they lose their job, I’m like ‘score’ because that person does not deserve to have this title which can impact certain communities, they need to work on themselves.”
When people make viral videos or posts they are already exercising their free speech rights. They are NOT protected from the consequences and the resulting backlash. Witnessing that through social media is the proof the professor uses to justify his position.
Turley often mischaracterizes consequences as “attacks” on free speech. Calls for censoring certain content such as the example the NYC professor gave is still free speech. if the social media platform decides to censor the content or ban the account they CAN do that. Just as Turley does on this blog. Obviously he does not allow overly racist or foul content despite calling himself a free speech absolutist. To claim to be one he would be allowing that kind of language and rhetoric on his blog.
Free speech is not just about being able speak your mind. It’s also about accepting responsibility for the consequences of exercising it and this is why the NYC professor is ok with censoring certain content that the private sector CAN do. It all comes down to the fact that the 1st amendment prohibitions do NOT apply to private entities. People getting fired over what they say on social media is ironically a consequence of republican legislation allowing companies to fire people for whatever reason except those that are protected by law. Like discrimination.
Logic is not your forte.
You claim that Turley supports censorship, and then quote him opposing censorship.
I get totally frustrated when there’s talk about our individual constitutional rights, because we are not a direct party to the Constitution of the United States, we are indirectly and collectively a party to an agreement of the States that only concerns, and is binding on, the States as the Union, just like HOA Covenants and Declarations only concern, and are binding on, the owners included in the agreement. As a participation versus compliance agreement, it is not binding in anyone outside the agreement, and no one outside the agreement need comply with the agreement, and likewise, no one outside the agreement can interpret or change the agreement.
When we look at the first amendment we find a constraint on government; “congress shall make no law;” which means no lay can be made one way or another, like in “establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof”, this doesn’t prevent individuals from establishing religion or practicing their religion, it prevents government from dictating and writing laws based upon religious doctrine, which laws on abortion violate, because instead of a scientific objection to the practice, we have a moral obligation based upon religious ideology. The same is true of deee speech, and the freedom of the press, which only curtails speech directed at, or about, our government, because the constitution is the assembly of our government and therefore only pertains to the government, not to speech outside, or directed outside, the agreement which forms and maintains, the Union of the States assembled in a congress.
So you don’t have freedom of speech in all instances, only in how it relates to the Union and how the Union functions as a collective decision making institution. The government can’t write a law one way or another to control speech directed at the government, especially if that government is improperly assembled and improperly operated and they are trying to suppress objections to that fact through laws preventing, or abridging, access to petition the government for redress of grievances, that are with the government or parties or the government. This is way the first amendment is all about, curtailing the collective power of the government to control individuals, and preventing individuals access to seek redress for grievances.
Today we are in total violation of the first amendment, because there are many constraints on petitioning our government for anything, much less for grievances concerning our government, in the form of cost, red tape, hoops in filing, and how the petition is addressed and adjudicated. Meaning, I have a grievance about how our government is assembled and how it functions, but there is absolutely no process for me to petition the government for redress, so the government is then free to continue without check on that improper assembly and function. The way it is supposed to work is that if I have a grievance against the government, or a constituent part of the government, then I would file a petition for redress with the legislature or the executive authority of the government, then upon receipt of that petition a court is assembled where I would participate in selecting the judges which would sit to hear and decide that disagreement, and the government as a party to the disagreement cannot decide the matter, or form a court themselves which decides the matter, so a completely neutral court assembled with the agreement of all parties to the disagreement must be formed to decide the matter.
We get so caught up in individual rights, “natural rights”, that we miss the big picture of collective rights, the rights of the People in their Collective Capacity, which is what constitutes a State, or the collective rights of the States in their Collective Capacity, which is what constitutes the Union, which is a discrete democracy of the States where all parties to the agreement which formed the Union have equal suffrage to participate in all the collective decisions of that Union.
Faction and individualism is the cancer that is destroying our society and governing system, the parties are the problem, not the solution!
I’ll just note one problem with your analysis.
this doesn’t prevent individuals from establishing religion or practicing their religion, it prevents government from dictating and writing laws based upon religious doctrine,
You are correct that the Constitution is an agreement between the States and the Federal govt.
Your example on establishing a religion, substitutes ‘government in place of ‘Congress’ The prohibition was to prevent the United States from mirroring the Church of England. Several States, in fact did have State Sponsored religion. The Origninal13 colonies organized generally around varying religious identities.
You strain to get you personal hobby horses included in the discussion, like abortion, and serveral other topics that confuse rather than clarify.
I’ll only say this; the agreement isn’t between the States and the federal government, it’s between the states as the federal government, as federal comes from the word confederated, as we are, and always have been, a confederacy, as established by Article 1 of the Articles of Confederation; the style of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America”, and that confederacy is the Union of the States assembled in a congress, which makes congress the federal government, not an executive branch with a President and an administration assembled by the President.
Get this straight, our government is a legislative system governed by legislative processes to reach a collective majority consensus of the States as the Union, a discrete democracy, where all the
States are assembled as equals with equal suffrage to reach a majority consensus of all the States as the Union, the Union which makes our country the United States of America, and you can’t get more democratic than that!
“Faction and individualism is the cancer that is destroying our society…” How many inventions and innovations were the product of communes? Your analysis is pure garbage. Carry on!
“. . . we miss the big picture of collective rights . . .”
There is no such thing as collective or group “rights” (which is merely a collection of *individuals*). Rights pertain to an individual. It is the individual that is fully real, not the group.
That collectivism you advocate is responsible for the worst horrors in human history — including the impoverishment, mass imprisonment and murder perpetrated by collectiivist slave-states such as communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Marxist China.
Abortion has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has to do with you not having the right to take another human life.
“Faction and individualism is the cancer that is destroying our society…”
And yet the contry was based on individulism, not collectivism and became the greatest nation in the world.
“Faction and individualism is the cancer that is destroying our society…”
On one hand, individualism is what founded our country. A degree of determination, grit, intestinal fortitude, drive if you will. Some may call it meritocracy.
On the other, there were times in which a community would come together for a common cause, e.g. defense against an external threat.
There was a colony in early America, pre-Revolution, that tried for a commune like model. Some of them did not make the through the first winter, everyone suffered. Everyone expected everyone else to do the work. They switched to a more individual, take responsibility for your self and did much, much better with less suffering.
During Mao’s Great Leap Forward that killed millions with their commune model, there was a small village that quietly broke from that model with farmers growing food on the side that they would either keep for themselves or sell. News of this village succeeding eventually got to officials who investigated. Rather then punishing them, they adopted the model in other villages. Sorry scant on the details, taken from memory of a NPR story I listened (back when NPR was still reputable) to several years ago.
Past few years I have had to deal with the government, they seem to have taken a commune like decision leadership by committee model. That way no one is held accountable. No one takes responsibility. Bureaucracy rules. No one is ever punished.
I have noted that individualism is now consider to be racist, or toxic masculinity. Sure, take a look at some really bad 80s movies for stereotypical examples of toxic masculinity.
However, we can also look back in history of men who despite great adversity, stepped up and did what had to be done. WWII, the invasion of Normandy for example.
Seems to me, what used to be considered positive traits of individualism, strength be it physical or mental, being accomplished in schooling, just succeeding in life are being demonized in the name of equality.
And that is what is destroying our society.
Accountability and responsibility is a hard sell against laziness and irresponsibility. It’s why I always tell libs to not worry, in the end they will win. There message plays on humans worst traits.
Liberals, conservatives, progressives, greenie weenies, etc. are all factions, and as such are precluded from participating in our government by the republican principle.
And if you actually read the constitution, you will find in Article 4 Section 4 that every State in the Union is guaranteed a Republican Form of Government, and to form a Confederated (compound) Republic, which is what the United States is as formed by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, all constituent parts, the States, must themselves be either simple or compound republics.
Where do you people get this stuff you are using in your comments. Who said anything about a commune, that’s not a collective, a Republican Form of Government is a collective governing system, because it’s based upon a representation of the people, not the people individually, because the population is too large to assemble and operate a direct democracy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a commune, or better nothing to do with communism, which actually is not a form of government.
Collective means that we form a representation of the people, “The People in their Collective Capacity” as the “Most Numerous Legislative Branch” by per capita apportionment based upon an enumeration, a census, where the people may participate in their government through representation as if they were present in person to participate and vote themselves to reach a majority consensus of ALL THE PEOPLE! This is the Republican Principle, and there are two forms of Republican Government, a simple republic which is one homogeneous district, and a confederated (compound) republic which is a Union of districts formed as republics. There also are two forms of democratic government, a system where the people participate directly and have equal suffrage to reach a majority consensus is a direct democracy, a system which assembles a number of distinct members, districts, where each district has equal suffrage to reach a majority consensus of all the members, forms a discrete democracy.
We actually have two independent and simultaneously operating federal governing systems in congress, the first is a republican form of government formed by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, a Confederated (compound) republic, to manage all matters and decisions govern how the States interact with each other to form and maintain the Union, and the original Confederacy which is reformed by Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the United States, which copies Articles 5 and 9 of the Articles of Confederation into the Constitution of the United States, to manage how the States as the Union interact with foreign nations to make the decisions of a free and independent state; levying war, concluding peace, contracting alliances, establishing commerce, and any other act or thing which an independent state may by right do, and the Senate is predominant in both through the power of concurrence over all laws, which are made by the Republican Form of Government, and all treaties which are solely made by the Confederate Form of Government.
The critical turn on free speech was the Benghazi attack. The Obama administration decided to pretend it was instigated by a short video promo released on YouTube, “The Innocence of Muslims.” Though it was only a pretext, left-wing professors and politicians spoke out to say that of course the video should be banned, suppressed, and censored, as it was “fighting words” and “incitement” to violence.
Unless one has been asleep at the wheel, the Left is overwhelmingly the source of censorship and dictatorship all over the globe. Why? Because the ideology runs counter to human self-interest and must be force fed to the masses while the ruling class offers nothing of value but is determined to maintain its own lifestyle. That’s why academia is mostly Left.
Olly, there is a whole area of law and language that studies the uses of our language throughout our history from a legal perspective. This particularly comes into play when the Supreme Court and lessor courts try to establish constitutional meaning. As we all know language morphs and changes over decades and centuries. One of the main benefits of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalists was their more down to earth descriptions as to what they felt was the intent of the Constitution at the time of its writing. All one has to do is read Chaucer in old English or the King James Version of the Bible and compare it to more recent versions and of course, it was transcribed.in turn, from Greek and other languages and there were errors. Just like a true meaning of the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” in Aramaic or Hebrew probably meant “Thou Shalt not Murder”, a significant difference no doubt.
As far as censorship desired by academics, I don’t lay the blame on administration. They are simply a symptom. The real rot lies in the academics themselves. It was there in the 1960’s in the liberal arts faculty but a little more circumspect. They were gods to themselves and seldom touchable and it just grew from there and now it even encompasses the hard sciences. “Settled science” is an oxymoron.
These academics are not self critical because they are not even self aware. In fact they fail the definition of sentient beings. They are more like a compendium of badly written algorithms, churning mindlessly on day by day.
“A walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
GEB,
Great post.
The end quote sums up the current state of affairs quite well.
there is a whole area of law and language that studies the uses of our language throughout our history from a legal perspective. This particularly comes into play when the Supreme Court and lessor courts try to establish constitutional meaning.
Thank you GEB. That doesn’t quite solve the problem though. The Leftists are succeeding in this war on our culture because they have weaponized the use of language. How absurd was it for a U.S. Senator to ask a supreme court nominee for her definition of a woman? Not nearly as absurd as the fact the nominee couldn’t provide one. The Administrative State has weaponized language to achieve political ends. By redefining domestic terrorist, all of a sudden parents speaking out against school boards find themselves in the crosshairs of federal agencies.
When it comes to the law and governance, language needs to be locked down. When Ibram X. Kendi’s circular definition of racism was taken seriously, rather than him being shamed into oblivion, then we are in huge trouble.
Definitions anchor us in principles. This is not a light point: If we don’t do the basic work of defining the kind of people we want to be in language that is stable and consistent, we can’t work toward stable, consistent goals. Some of my most consequential steps toward being an antiracist have been the moments when I arrived at basic definitions. To be an antiracist is to set lucid definitions of racism/antiracism, racist/antiracist policies, racist/anti-racist ideas, racist/antiracist people. To be a racist is to constantly redefine racist in a way that exonerates one’s changing policies, ideas, and personhood.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/06/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist
The 1st amendment should protect Kendi expressing this definition and should protect me in condemning it. What is happening today is a cultural change in definitions is transforming the meaning of laws that were passed under different definitions. We shouldn’t have to fear going to bed observant of the law, only to be subject to a no-knock raid at dawn because the language within the law had been redefined.
OLLY,
Well said.
‘She/he/it’, and others of that ilk, take such public postures because, in their self-aggrandizing minds, the proverbial they’ will never come for ‘them’, and there will always be someone left to protest. Beware the sin of false pride.
What the heck does that word salad, mental gymnastics even mean?
“One of the most frustrating aspects for the free speech community these days is when anti-free speech advocates claim to be champions of free speech before calling for censorship.”
– War is peace
– Freedom is slavery
– Ignorance is strength
Statements such as this and the recent one by Senator Ben Cardin, while not legally or factually accurate move the so-called Overton Window bit by bit allowing lessor luminaries as AOC and your run of the mill virtue signaling s@@tlib to call for the same thing.
And yes, merely opposing their efforts at censorship makes you a ‘nazi’ too.
Welcome to the dark side, JT.
antonio
I wonder if any of the censorship crusaders have ever tuned into MSNBC or some of the other cable channels that spew anti-“whiteness” hatred 24/7? Of course, they’d probably just redefine that hate speech as some kind of “justice.” These cowards know they are on the wrong side of history, so they hide behind lofty slogans to cover their social crimes. Imagine going through life never being able to put forward an honest face.
Mayn states have laws forbidding religious discrimination in employment.
Firing someone for attending Roman Catholic mass is considered discrimination against Roman Catholics.
Whaqt about peacefully expressing Judenhass? is not Judenhass an article of faith for militant Islamists? do notn thse laws equally prohibit discriminating against someone for being a militant Islamist, just as they prohibit disxcrimination against someone for being a Roman Catholic?
Michael, why dont we just go back to a time before hate crimes and arrest and prosicute anyone for just plain assaulting someone. Oh, did I offend the protected classes?
The laws against private discrimination are a mistake.
This is not the business of government.
This is not to say that private discrimination is a good thing,
but it is generally self regulating and self punishing.
One of the things I find the wierdest about the current moment,
is that the left seems to think we are at Peak racism, Peak sexism, peak homophobia.
And that the US is the most evil place on earth.
Yet, the fact is we live in the least hateful, most diverse moment in human history, in the least hateful, most diverse country in the world.
And the left is working very hard to destroy that.
The left is so small-minded that even the tiny amount of power censoring their opponents gives them is a rush. That academia is in the forefront of censorship tells us something about the deteriorating conditions in colleges and universities. Faculty that are secure and confident in their roles would welcome debate and would not have to censor their opponents. But now, know-nothing administrators have taken over the campuses, and are in collusion with dumbed-down activist students and “grievance” department faculty. True professors and students genuinely seeking to learn don’t stand a chance.
It is stunning to read of how easily people believe they have a moral ground to censor or control speech and thought. It wreaks of pathetic fear. Or perhaps orwellian over lord?
I hope all of this censorship narrative dies with the political and tech leaders of the day. We need a cleansing urge of this thinking so we can return to a more utopian discourse. The partisan left and tech leaders need to be replaced with more fearless and strong advocates. They are right when they say “democracy” is under seige.But the left and tech are the barabrians of.speech and thought.
That we have a ‘free speech community’, and our Constitutional rights aren’t just a no-brainer, is difficult for those of us over 40 to even fathom. To see so many formerly staunch defenders of personal freedom’s brains ooze out their ears as they posture for imaginary relevance is equally astonishing. I do not recognize my country, nor do I recognize many of my friends. While corrupt, lying politicians are nothing new, the twist in the minds of modern leftist voters is nothing short of wicked. These are not political parties anymore.
Amen
In context, it is the 18th century, 1750’s and 60’s and you can ‘feel’ the discontent with George III in England making demands from his colonies.
And in the 1770’s, we all know what transpired — a revolt against the King.
My point is that the Declaration of Independence, and then our Constitution — and the men who wrote the words were some of the most educated, forward-thinking human beings on this planet at the time —–
And who the hell is this person from NYU to claim that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution should come with allowable ‘censorship’?
Yes – you can’t scream FIRE in a crowded theater — but you can speak words which others vehemently disagree with — but shutting your voice ‘Off’ through censorship will never work in the end —-
Happy New Year 2023 — it should be an interesting one — revelations of shenanigans behind the scenes, and more.
It appears that some of these people are conflating the Ten Commandments with the First Amendment. It is one of the Ten Commandments: Thou shall not bear false witness. Long disputated by scholars & often extended to cover malicious gossip (Lishon Hurra). This would lie within the realm of personal conscience. Hope this helps to clarify the apparent crux of their confusion.
Do these prog/left imbeciles realize just how much they sound like the The Grand Inquisition?
Every call for censorship deepens the alarm of Americans who believe in the Bill of Rights.
Facetious question.
Can we allow these censorship loving people to have a public voice?
Or continued employment in education (government, finance, etc)?
One of the problems for liberty minded people, is that they must tolerate those who would destroy liberty.
The left will just redefine the “censor” like they have done with vaccine, cause of death or recession.
Is there an officially recognized dictionary? If not, perhaps it’s time for one. So when laws are passed, or court decisions are made, the language used is locked into the official definition at that time.
Olly,
That would be nice, but have you seen recent commercials? We don’t even have an official language.
Read Animal Farm or 1984 – there is nothing you can do that the left will not game.
Listen to those on the left here. Do you think they could not argue that left is right and black is white using any dictionary at all ?\
Once you have no moral foundations – any lie or action is justified.
Very familiar with them. 1984 and Brave New World are my bookends. My favorite left tactic is how they accuse you of exactly what they are doing or did. Or, take a system that is working fine, interfere with it causing it to fail, and then blame that system for something and then come in and “save the day”.