By Nathan Barton
The fight AGAINST free speech has a long tradition of evil abuse in the Fifty States, going back to before the Revolution, when the doctrine of jury power to decide both the law and the facts (usually ignored today) was established in response to a man being punished for his free speech. His public, published condemnation of crimes committed by a government official. It continued through the Sedition Acts under the first President Adams, and right through Lincoln’s war on some Northerners, Wilson’s attacks on German speakers and pacifists during WW2, and right down to the present. Here are a few examples this week.
“Anti-Vaxxers” are too evil to allow them freedom we all take for granted, including free speech. Free Press Publications discusses the SCOTUS decision that children can be FORCED to receive vaccines and NOT have their constitutional rights violated – but (my note) ONLY if their parents send them to public school. Duh! Meanwhile, people are actually calling for prosecution and jailing of those who ADVOCATE not vaccinating children, as Slate, Addicting Info and others have promoted.
Education – that is educrats in government-run, tax-funded schools – are into free speech, that being defined as “speech with which we agree” and that they have approved (usually only in advance). An example is reported by Freedom Outpost; a textbook is being condemned as racist, for a single sentence, and although the publisher has backed water and even provided a sticker to cover the offending language, it is not enough. The textbook in question is NOT a history book but a geography text, and while it identifies the “African Slave Trade” as being a source of immigrants to the United States and a source of North America’s current ethnic and cultural makeup, it apparently fails to bow down to the god (goddess?) of political correctness by not having a diatribe about the evils of slavery – at least, “black slavery.” This, in Orwellean speak, is “racist.”
GRTF-schools are not alone in being hotbeds of anti-free speech fights. In San Diego, Freedom Outpost reports on a private “christian” school that is under attack because it has decided to discharge a student because the student’s “family” does not conform to the standards which the school deems necessary. The student is a five-year-old girl who has “two mommies;” a lesbian couple who apparently cannot themselves read (the school’s handbook makes the position clear, and there is documentation that the “parents” signed off that they had read and understood the handbook). Freedom of association is the twin sister of freedom of speech, but this school is not allowed to have either. The two women are suing the school, both to force the school to teach their “daughter” AND to stop teaching the idea that homosexuality and “same sex marriage” is sinful. Personally I think the school is missing an opportunity to help teach the child that what she is learning and seeing at home is wrong, and they should have been happy to have the child in school. But at the same time, I can see why they would be concerned that their school would be seen by the public, and other families, as condoning what they view as sinful.
Here is another example of “free speech for me, but not for thee.” Personal Liberty tells us that People Magazine’s editorial director is going all out for gun control propaganda, and has an online post promoting the upcoming issue’s focus on gun violence. The new issue will publish the contact information for every member of Congress with an exhortation to “make sure they know from now on that routine responses just won’t cut it.” There is, apparently, to be no opportunity for those who are pro-self-defense, or pro-RKBA to be allowed to speak. And Congressmen are urged to NOT listen to the evil gun owners.
The WaPo has an explanation for this, in a column, “These political scientists may have just discovered why U.S. politics are a disaster.”Ana Swanson says that “It is not your imagination: America really is becoming more divided, both in terms of its wealth and its politics.” It seems that she thinks the reason is that we extremists are allowed too many forums; too many ways to cause trouble by saying and writing and printing lies and incitement to division. We MUST be contained, constrained, and coerced into being nice and giving up. If we would all just agree to live in a mushy, warm and comfortable conformity, a “middle-of-the -road” society, it would be a great place to live, according to these political scientists. (There are MANY reasons that “political science” is an oxymoron.)
Oddly enough, at the same time freedom of speech is being attacked, restricted and proscribed, a lot of Tranzis are willing to state that outright initiation of violence is a form of free speech which should be protected and encouraged. They point to what is claimed to be the “Third Intifada” in Canaan as an example. The WaPo states that “Palestinians” wielding knives attacked and stabbed three Jewish Israelis in three separate assaults Wednesday, as clashes that have left almost 1,000 people injured since they began Saturday continued to flare. We are told that this violence, these assaults, are not only justified as “self-defense” against evil Israeli “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” but are forms of free speech. Frankly, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that aggression is “free speech.”
Bring back the fat? The WaPo claims that the case against whole milk “thins” (pun intended by the WaPo headline writer). Peter Whoriskey states that despite U.S. guidelines that had recommended people drink fat-free or low-fat milk, new research indicates that millions might have been better off had they stuck with whole milk. As with vaccines, the issue of whole versus low-fat, as well as pasteurization and homogenization and all the other stuff done to milk to “make it safe” has been a battleground for years. But now, not just farmers who sell the pure quill are being prosecuted and persecuted, not just people who own part of a cow in a cooperative venture are being ticketed and even jailed, but advocates are being condemned and calls made for their punishment, as in this story by the Pacific Standard from several months ago, comparing them to the evil Anti-Vaxxers. (It is NOT that I don’t think that there are potential problems with raw milk, or whole milk, or other things, but it is the strategy and tactics used to fight what should be a careful and rational discussion: attempting to use the power of government to “resolve the problem.”
Mama’s Note: The rational “discussion” is terrific and may benefit many people, but the bottom line has to be the free market, individual choice, and personal responsibility for the consequences of all choices and actions. The false idea that any government entity or “laws” can relieve people from being responsible for themselves is the more direct poison here. People will only suffer the restriction of their speech as long as they accept the politically correct, whatever it may be. They are, in essence, accepting responsibility for the wrong things altogether.