Historically this would have been both unnecessary and a no brainer; after all didn't the wild leftists at Berkeley fight for free speech in the 1960s?
The reality however is that the left has never been for free speech for all; instead they've been for leftists. To the left free speech is about pornography and being able to call for the destruction of America. It's never been about being able to support Republicans without fear of physical assault or allowing people of faith to not have to participate in gay weddings.
The left's call for free speech has always been a sham. From the beginning their intent was to allow things they wanted to say to be protected and as soon as that was established they planned to silence speech they didn't like.
To the left it's free speech for me and silence for thee. That's why the left defines speech that they don't agree with as hate speech and violence. While it's unlikely they truly believe this in their hearts their propaganda line is that someone on the right opposing the redefinition of marriage is just as violent as some Antifa member beating that person with a club.
In fact the left justifies the violence by leftists against people who they disagree with by saying that it's ok to use violence to silence speech that is itself violent.
Aside from the fact that this directly rejects the 1st Amendment the position of the left is also problematic since it's the same position that every dictator in history has held; including Hitler and Stalin.
Fascists say that we the people can say whatever we want so long as it's approved of by our ruling elites. That's precisely the position of Democrat politicians and the left in general today.
Because Democrat politicians hate free speech they will probably argue that forcing schools to allow it is in fact endorsing violence against students--but of course only students who are leftists since students who are conservatives will continue to be silenced and physically attacked--and hence is evil.
What will be interesting is how public the Democrats are willing to be about their fascist nature. We see Democrats going all out in support of infanticide yet simultaneously working hard through their stooges in the #FakeNews media to keep voters from finding out the truth. On the other hand Democrats are willing for people to know that they want to kill all the cows and provide a good standard of living for people who are able to but who don't want to work.
I bet they will try and bury their opposition to free speech while doing everything they can to block Trump since they've seen that even though they've tried to keep their support for infanticide out of view there has been a massive swing, especially among young Democrat voters, against abortion for any reason at any time including shortly after birth.
The motto of Cal Tech, taken from the Bible, is that the truth shall set us free. And if we can get the truth about what Democrat politicians really stand for to we the people it will set us free from the neo-fascist Democrat party for good.
Posts
2 comments:
I think this is somewhat unfair to Mussolini, in places.
Chesterton commented that if criticising his régime was definitely less free, criticising Freemasons had become more free since 1922 (I think his interview with Il Duce was in 1935, the year before he died).
Clearly no statement about a group as diverse as fascists can be fully accurate when applied to every single person who we would classify as a fascist.
I think everyone agrees that while Mussolini was a fascist he wasn't as bad as Hitler or Stalin. Further while it's true that his repression of speech wasn't as bad as say Stalins he did believe that the people were subordinate to the government and that that did give the government the right to control what people said.
Post a Comment