The Liberal Assault on Liberalism

 

"... Apple and Google removed [Parler] from their app stores because they said it had not sufficiently policed its users’ posts, allowing too many that encouraged violence and crime."   ---Today's NYSlime, in glee mode.

"POLICED"

Not a peep of protest from the Slime.  On the contrary, they are creaming in their pants that their loathed opponents are being silenced.

I find it astonishing that erstwhile liberals would be applauding the policing of public forums.  That is what police states do.    That is what the segregationist press did.   That   is....   Is it really necessary to catalogue?

"The mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." (Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 367 U. S. 297-298 (1961).)

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444  (1969), the Court again explained the boundaries of free speech.  In that case, 12 hooded figures, some of whom carried firearms had gathered around a large wooden cross, which they burned. No else one was present.  The defendant, in Klan regalia, made a speech, in which he said,

"This is an organizers' meeting. We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken. ...  We are marching on Congress July the Fourth, four hundred thousand strong.  ...   Personally, I believe the nigger should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel."   (Id., at p. 447.)

Though some of the figures in the films carried weapons, the speaker did not.  Defendant was prosecuted under an Ohio statute which prohibited ""advocat[ing] or teach[ing]  the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence..."

The Supreme Court reversed…

"Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action"  (Id., at p. 449.)

The distinction is not that difficult to fathom and is illustrated by the facts in Brandenburg.  Had a Negro chanced to walk by on the other side of the field or on the road, during the meeting, and had defendant thereupon shouted: "Hey boys, there he goes! Let's go teach that coon what we mean!" that would have been incitement to imminent action.   Although the words might precede the conduct, if they are immediately connected to the conduct such that they can be called the immediate and proximate cause, then they have incited unlawful action and are not protected by the First Amendment. 

Of course, every case will depend on its particular circumstances.  If the defendant have been addressing a group of journalists, then it would be highly unlikely and unreasonable to suppose that the words would result in immediate action.    It must be remembered that when the Supreme Court hears these cases they do so after the fact.  What did or did not result from the words spoken is a known fact.   The case is otherwise when prior censorship is used; that is, when words are spoken without there being any known effect.   

In this latter case, the trend has been to censor speech on the ground that it could  lead to some adverse consequence or on the ground that the words spoken have a tendency to provoke disturbances or bring the government into disrepute.   This is the language of the old sedition statutes which make a shambles of free speech.  "Could" is a matter of speculation and an argument can always be made that some words could, might, or should certainly result in some unacceptable consequences.   But this is not an objective measure. Notwithstanding the sociological and statistical mumbo-jumbo that is often brought to bear, it is simply an argument and arguments can always be rustled up to suppress speech that the powers that be do not like.   

Now, as I've said elsewhere, Google, Twitter and social media are privately owned.  But that doesn't solve the problem it makes it worse.  Even medieval peasants understood the evil of "enclosing" common lands, which is what has happened.  

The internet was developed with public funds and is and ought to be regarded as a public space.  For a variety of technical reasons it has been effectively taken over by private corporations who now wish to treat it as their private domain to do with what they wont.  

Amur'kans ever sucking the cock of the free market and private ownership think this is just fine.  Who has the bucks, calls the shots.  What could be more natural?!  For shame.

First Amendment protections should be extended to "commons" even if they are privately owned, as I argued yesterday.

Most of what people have to say is garbage.  Just look at Martin Luther for example!  His words triggered a 30 year long war that cost 8 million lives.   But if the dogs in the field have a natural right to howl, so too man.   It should not be curtailed or policed no matter what the excuse. 

Historically, speech suppression has been the hallmark of monarchs and reactionary institutions like the Church.   But of late it has been pushed by the "liberal" establishment with a ferocity and vindictiveness that exceeds anything mustered by Torquemada or Savanarola.    The hypocrisy drips from their sputtering mouths.   They extol "diversity" and claim to value "vigorous debate"  but then they turn like rabid hyenas on anything they peremptorily denouncet as "inappropriate," "unacceptable" or  "beyond the pale".  Of course!  Of course we value free speech... .but not this!   

Liberals have managed to prove that they, as much as anyone else, are a threat to democracy which can only be based on free speech.

Just as wretchedly, they accomplish their aims by destroying language itself.   Argument or explanation is reduced to a barrage of free floating, inflammatory adjectives ("hateful," "extremist,"  "terrorist")  or verbs unmodified by any prepositional phrase. It was said that Trump "incited" the crowd.  Incited to what?   What did Trump actually say that supposedly triggered a mob assault into the Senate chamber? No answer.  Instead, from the outset the media rushed to label the riot a "coup" and an "insurrection" both of which -- if words are to have any meaning -- presuppose conspiracy, organization and intent.  But again, no facts.  Two days later Pelosi called it an "unbalanced assault" -- whatever the hell that is. This is nothing but language as flash-bang. It is, of course, the sort of thing Trump does in his own fashion, but it is resorted to in equal measure by his opponents and by the august New York Slime, whose headlines in the past few days have been an undiluted demagoguery of their own

The reduction of speech to un-nuanced, emotional trigger-words is the essence of Orwellian mind control; and in this the liberals have proved themselves adept and shameless. 

We are tired of having to constantly explain the basics of free speech and to defend it against sanctimonious guardians, such as the Woke Feminist Guardian, Heiko-the-Idiot, Jacinda-the-Mournful, the unaccountable owners and guardians of social media and, of course, the New York Slime.   But among the many causes of dismay in the country, none is more insidious and dangerous than the debasement of language coupled with the suppression of opposing points of view.  

Since liberals seem to be hooked on Nazi and Fascist analogies,  I might point out that it took an actual fire in the Reichstag to provide a passable justification for enacting the Law for the Protection of the People and the Reich.   For today's establishment liberals a mere riot will do.   If we constantly explain and defend the principles of free speech it is because it is threatened by a liberal crusade to make the internet and public spaces, safe, inoffensive, politically and factually correct; that is, (stripped of bullshit), to rid it of things they don't like.   It is my fear that just as 9/11 was used as the pretext for instituting the Nation Security State, this riot will be used as an excuse to dox, vet, sanitize and control speech and information; to safeguard our democracy for the right-thinking people who deserve it!

Bah.