Source:The New Democrat
To put to bluntly, if you don’t like free speech, you’re probably not a fan of liberal democracy and sure as hell not America as well. The First Amendment, is not something you can mess with simply because you don’t like the opposition and what they have to say, or you’re frustrated about their ability to communicate their message and attract followers. Which is how today’s so-called Progressives feel about Fox News, right-wing talk radio to use as examples. And launching campaigns to get those organizations shut down and shut up.
Free speech, just doesn’t protect Americans right to be kind, intelligent and enlightened. But it protects our right to free speech and that even includes the right to say stupid things and believe garbage, to be nice that no intelligent person could ever believe as the truth. I mean if you actually look at the First Amendment, what does it say? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” So where do you see in that where Congress could pass a law banning offensive speech in America?
One of the great things about living in a liberal democracy, or liberalized society, is the ability to put all the information, facts and views out there. Where everyone can be heard and where we know where everyone stands. The right to free speech doesn’t entitle anyone to respect. You can pretty much say whatever you want short of harassing, libeling and inciting violence. And then the public gets to figure out whose right and whose wrong. Whose smart, whose stupid, whose tolerant and whose hateful. With public consequences coming from the people as far as what we say. Short of actually shutting people up and giving them governmental sanctions for what they say.
So the answer to the question should we let haters speak is sort of a moot question. Because we already do and there isn’t a hell of a lot that can be do about that short of amending the First Amendment. Which is almost impossible to do anyway, but again if you’re a fan of free speech and the First Amendment which all Liberals are including myself, that is exactly how it should be. If you’re not a Liberal and you’re not a fan of free speech and would prefer collective speech with a so-called progressive enlightened committee deciding what is proper and what isn’t proper when it comes to speech, then you have a big problem with free speech. And you’re liberal credentials are probably non-existent.
I just discovered this today, and I am not even so sure if whoever wrote this post read, or let alone, understand the point I was trying to get across in the article (I was STRONGLY pro free speech). I’d like to discuss this further and figure out why I got such as response in this one.
P.S: if you are wondering about the article’s name, I just make such names to make it more likely for people to read. I have done this to attract people such as civilian weapon control and current supporters of the Israeli government becuase if I make the true views of the post obvious, they might not be so likely to read it.
Don’t be so sensitive. I didn’t mention you, or claim that you don’t support free speech. One of the reasons I posted your link is because I agree with a lot of what you said in your piece.