Posts Tagged ‘freedom of speech’

White Supremacists Have Freedom of Speech Too

Posted by Troy on 16th August 2017 in Current Events, Political

This is a key point that you must agree to if you believe in free speech.  I remember in the 1990′s, the KKK had a protest and they had to call out the National Guard.  I commented to my dad about the cost and how it shouldn’t be allowed.  He said that, while they are distasteful and want to incite people, they had freedom of speech.  Now we are talking about “should hate speech be illegal?”

Fact: this group had a permit to hold their demonstration.  A reasonable police chief would have blocked the area off, let them have their demonstration, and had them leave.

The fact that this was not how things went down leads me to believe that the mayor wanted violence.  Why?  So they could demonize Trump.  Bear in mind, his the same mayor that called his city the capital of the Resistance.

When the car plowed into those people, Trump denounced both sides for violence.  You can say he did not hesitate to call out terrorist attacks.  Well, when someone uses IEDs out in public, you can say, “I’ve seen this before…” and place a safe bet of Islamic Terror [you may be wrong, but it's still the safe bet].  This was more like if the Hell’s Angels had a clash with the Crips or the Bloods.  Crap, the shots could have been fired by either side.  Because let’s be honest… Antifa and Nazis are both fascists.

And let me just take a moment here for a pet peeve for all those people carrying signs saying “I don’t need your Nazi ideas!”  Yeah… like a welfare state and nationalized healthcare and abortion and euthanasia…

But let me go back to this… White Supremacists have the freedom of speech.  Banning any type of speech is NOT a slippery slope.  Once you make any kind of speech illegal, you are already sliding downhill uncontrollably.  As soon as you give the government the right to label speech “hate speech” and make it illegal, they can just call anything they don’t like, “hate speech.”  Speaking out about abortion is hate speech against women.  Want to secure the border?  Hate speech to immigrants.  Against single payer health care?  Hate speech against the sick or the poor.

Speech should not be illegal.  Thoughts should be shared and discussed with mutual respect and with clarity of thought.  I for one fear no speech as I can disarm any such speech with my own logic.  Even if I cannot convince the other party of my point, I can walk away in peace having heard their points and given my points.

Long Live the Constitution!

Freedom of Speech and Drawing Mohammed

Posted by Troy on 6th May 2015 in Current Events

Baseline facts: A group held a drawing Mohammed contest to celebrate free speech.  This, not surprisingly, caused two Muslims to go unglued and attempt to shoot up the place.  They failed and were shot by an off duty cop.

In a rare instance, I was happy to agree with Obama who came out in defense of Free Speech.  It very much annoyed me when Bush did not do this in the similar Denmark bombing over Mohammed cartoons.

Since the group was drawing the Prophet Mohammed, it didn’t take long for many people to condemn the group for holding such a contest.  Others said that hate speech equates to “fighting words” and is not protected speech.  I should think that fighting words should be something particular to a specific person.  Otherwise, that law is so unworkable that it should be ignored.  In this day and age, flying off the handle is common place over ANYTHING.

I wonder where are these detractors regarding Ferguson and Baltimore and New York, where protestors are actively calling for dead cops.  Should they be arrested?  Hell, that’s straight up inciting violence.  In fact, a fair number of protestors in these places are anarchists who WANT there to be violence and are trying to incite it as best they can.  Why?  Because they want to tear the system down.  Why?  Because they are f___ing idiots.

Freedom of Speech must be protected at all times.  If someone was throwing a pro-choice rally, and a guy busted in and shot up the place because the speech offended him, would you say that they shouldn’t have thrown a rally that was going to offend a pro-lifer?  What is the threshold of offense that you wish to lay?  Shall we merely regulate our freedom based upon whatever threshold of the most easily offended group?  I say, “Nay.”  To do so is to render the Freedom of Speech a relic of the past.  I have always advocated that people need to just grow up and ignore those who offend them or deal with them in a mature fashion.

Long Live the Constitution!

HR 347 – No Free Speech Zones

Posted by Troy on 25th February 2013 in Political

In 2012, Congress passed a law that grants the Secret Service the ability to declare “No Free Speech Zones” at any location they are present.  Since the President can assign the Secret Service to any location at any time, this effectively grants him the ability to shut down any speech he doesn’t approve.  This is explicitly intended to curb protests where the President is speaking.  Basically, at any point, the Secret Service can nullify your freedom of speech and arrest you on felony charges, throwing you in jail for up to a year.  For what?  For speaking your mind?  For saying something that offends the delicate sensibilities of the President?  This is draconian.  This is the infringement of speech merely on basis on content.  I have a feeling that Secret Service will not be arresting supporters.  Just a hunch.  So far, this law has not been abused.  To my knowledge, it has not been enforced.  However, this is a bad law.  Whenever a right can be overturned arbitrarily without due process of law, it is no longer a right.  You now have the privilege of speech.  They are also wanting to make the right to own a gun a privilege that you have to own a license and qualify to have.  Quartering of troops is passe and we don’t see it anymore.  We have had our protection from unlawful search and seizure and our right to trial taken away by the Patriot Act and Obama’s kill list.  What’s left exactly?  When are you going to stand up and say enough?

Long Live the Constitution!

New Constitutional Amendment Denies Bill of Rights

Posted by Troy on 21st April 2012 in Current Events, Political

On the heels of the Citizens United case, the Democrats are now pushing an Amendment to the Constitution that will deny that corporations (profit or otherwise) have any rights under the Constitution (but Unions, I’m sure, are still cool).  That is to say, that only individuals have rights.

First of all, I would like to point out that the Democrats likely have an issue with Citizen’s United SOLELY due to the fact that corporations tend to favor Republicans.  I have a feeling, if it was the other way around, they would be defending the rights of corporations.

Second, corporations are made up of individuals.  They hire individuals.  They sell goods and services to individuals.  They should have every right in the world to defend their interest as long as they are not giving out false information.  If they are found giving out false information, they should be liable the same as any individual.  Here’s a question for ya: a demagogue launches into a tirade about how a factory is polluting the air and the water and that you should elect them so they can force the factory out of town.  Shouldn’t the corporation have the right to buy ads that show that the candidate has ties to a competing company?  Shouldn’t they be able to defend their interest and point out how the local economy depends upon this factory?  If not, then the demagogue wins, boots out the factory, and the town dies as the economy evaporates.

Third, corporations clearly have rights.  Under the proposed Amendment, corporations would have no rights before the law, to searches and seizures, or to speech.  What about the right to gather peacefully?  We could go on an on.  Clearly corporations have rights.

Fourth, this Amendment could set up a police state scenario.  Since news organizations are owned by corporations, a strict reading of the law would give the government a complete right to censure the news.  This is particularly concerning since the First Amendment states that Congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

Finally, I would like to point out that I do actually commend the Democrats for actually following Congressional law and trying to get what they want by the Amendment process.  They usually just ignore the Constitution and do it anyway.

The cure is worse than the disease in this case.  The current laws are enough to deal with the situation.  What is the liability for libel which causes someone to lose a Presidential election?  It’s huge.  You have the wages lost during the Presidency, book deals, speaking engagements, and the increased earnings after the job.  A few libel suits of this nature would ruin all but the most massive corporations.

Long Live the Constitution!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/real-news-from-the-blaze-on-citizens-united-and-congressional-democrats-move-to-amend-the-constitution/