Standing up for Free Speech

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not some sort of magical set of documents that should be compared as equal to the Bible. Don’t get me wrong they are quite a good way to run a society, but they do however have some issues. The founding fathers were great people, and had the right idea in the direction they wanted the nation to go in. George Washington and Robert E. Lee would be in the alt right. The 1790 Naturalization Act limited giving citizenship only to white men of good character. Which shows that the forefathers were all for keeping the U.S. as an European country.

One of the most important of these amendments in the Bill of Rights, is the first amendment. For those of you who spent your 8th grade U.S. history class playing minecraft on your laptop, the first amendment is the freedom of speech. The first amendment states that 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So far the court system has upheld the constitution. Earlier this year the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment. Just over the weekend the federal government also ruled that the controversial Unite the Right Rally was legal. As of right now we have not had to deal with the court system not defending people’s right to speak.

As Millennial Matt likes to say “the freedom of speech is not a human right, but it is an American right”. American citizens are the only people in the world with this right, and we will only continue having this right if we defend it. Citizens living in Europe are experiencing major free speech violations. In Europe we have Brits who fly the ISIS flag with no sort of persecution whatsoever, while anyone making any sort of reference to nazism will be sent to jail automatically. The Euro-court has outlawed the right for people to criticize the European Union. In George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four he describes a futuristic society where you are not allowed to disagree with the establishment. Europe is literally living in this dystopian futuristic society that prohibits people right to place their grievance against the establishment. Common people who voice any concern about the massive demographic changes they are dealing with in their home countries are being fined for thousands of dollars. Folks who make a joke about Islam on twitter can see themselves behind bars in no time. The current tyrannical rule we are seeing in Europe is not something we want to be under here at home in the United States.

Even though the government can’t take legal action against free speech quite yet, that hasn’t stopped the censorship of media and information. Our good ‘ol buddy Mark Zuckerberg who owns every single one of the most used social media sites is no stranger to unnecessary censorship. People from all over the right wing spectrum have been persecuted on these platforms. Accounts associated with the alt right are very likely to get deleted if not temporarily suspended. Even those who want to have nothing to do with the alt right, but are somewhat conservative have seen their accounts being suspended or deleted. Many who make their living by posting videos on the internet that discuss issues from a right wing perspective are seeing their videos demonetized by platforms such as Youtube.

The Google employee getting fired for releasing a memo discussing the biological differences between men and women proves the point that these Silicon Valley companies have no room for the diversity of ideas. A street artist posted these fliers just after the incident.Screen Shot 2017-08-14 at 9.55.05 PM
Companies such as Google and Facebook have the right as a private company to take off anyone they want from their platform. Facebook and Google also have a complete monopoly on the internet. That is why White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon is calling for major tech companies to be regulated by the government as public utilities. If this happens, Google and Facebook will not be able to kick people with opposing views off their platforms. The internet is by far the top provider of information in this day and age, and having a few select companies controlling what everybody views is dangerous.

This has become far more of a pressing issue after Mark Zuckerberg hired Hillary Clinton’s former Chief Strategist. There have been many who are predicting that Zuckerberg is going to run for President of the United States in 2020. If this does happen, Zuckerberg will have a clear path to victory. The man will literally be able to control all the information people see on the internet concerning the presidential race. The internet was one of the last places where the common voice had as loud of a voice as mainstream media. He can push forward as much Fake News as he wants about other candidates and virtually cover up any bad press he gets. Rumor of Mark Zuckerberg’s run for the presidency has inspired some more controversial street art.

Screen Shot 2017-08-14 at 9.54.15 PM
Immediately after the pictures went viral the street artist’s facebook page was taken down because of ‘muh hate speech’. The street art was not that creative or funny, but having the guys Facebook page deleted shows how much power these Technocrats have. 

What makes the internet a beautiful place is the fact that everybody can have a voice, and we need to fight for it to stay that way. Free speech is not a human right, but it is an American right. In recent months there have been groups such as antifa who have done their best to censor free speech when the government failed to do so. We cannot let these agitators win. We must have large groups continue to come out to these rallies in defense of free speech. We can under no circumstances give up these rights. The taking away of the first amendment will be one of the key components causing the downfall of our once great civilization.   

3 thoughts on “Standing up for Free Speech

  1. From the O.P.:

    So far the court system has upheld the constitution.

    I have to disagree with that statement.

    The Courts have upheld current year interpretations of the Constitution, which isn’t the same thing as what the Constitution actually states nor the original intent of the framers.

    There is a principle here we must never allow to be lost on us lest we succumb ourselves to the “living, breathing” theory of the Constitution. By that theory the Constitution can mean everything and nothing at the same time.

    Think of Jefferson’s warning that the Constitution, in the hands of the unaccountable federal judiciary, is a “mere thing of wax” that the judges may twist and shape into anything they want it to be. This is precisely what they’ve done.

    George Washington stated in his Farewell Speech that,

    But the Constitution which exists at any time, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory on all.

    By this statement (and in context of the broader paragraph from whence I have excerpted it) we are given to understand that the only “explicit and authentic act of the whole people” which qualifies for changing the Constitution away from the original intent of the framers is the article V amendment process, not the whims of the federal judiciary and their out-of-thin-air invention of the so called Incorporation Doctrine. “Equal protection” and “due process” of the laws notwithstanding.

    The bottom line here is that the first amendment was never intended to apply to or be enforced against the state and local authorities; it was written and ratified for the sole purpose of prohibiting the central government from exercising authority over free speech issues.

    Were the Courts actually upholding the Constitution on Bill of Rights issues, they would, e.g., never usurp the authority of state and local governments to control or regulate the sale and distribution of violent video games like Mortal Combat within their own jurisdictions. Etc.

    This is where “conservative” pontificators like Cal Thomas have it all wrong. If Thomas is *really interested* in what Jefferson et al might have said on the matter (of whether he would have agreed with the Mortal Combat decision), then, as I’ve suggested he do on a number of occasions before, he (Thomas) should go to the source himself, rather than “imagine” where Jefferson would have come down on the issue. Anything else is mere projection; it is “this is how I see things, and therefore how Jefferson would see things too.” We get enough of that from the political left.


    1. You do make a great point about the constitution and freedom of speech. However state courts have been doing a descent job at least till now in defending freedom of speech and I just wanted to point out how much better we have it than Europe and how people are not allowed differing views on the internet.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s