I generally think Americans should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want without fear of repercussions.
I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions.
We, as a sane and civil society, should not normalize publicly gloating over a political assassination. Outside of the militant libertarians, this should be something everyone agrees on. You might express those views among friends and, frankly, if a friend recorded you and made it public they’d both not be your friend and I’d advocate no sanctions against you for having voiced that view privately among friends. It’s the public championing of an assassin we need to shut down.
Americans used to have two basic things we all agreed on.
Nazis are bad.
No one should get killed for expressing their views.
What the left has done is attempt to expand the definition of the former to get around the limitations of the latter. If anyone the left disagrees with is a Nazi, well Nazis need to die.
It’s just wild to see people believe Charlie Kirk deserved to be killed for his speech, but the same people think it is a bridge too far for one to lose their job over believing that.
I am fine with doctors, nurses, teachers, professors, soldiers, and others losing their jobs for supporting, justifying, or defending the assassination of an American they do not like. I am not fine with anyone losing their jobs saying nasty things about Charlie Kirk that do not include justifications for or defenses of the assassination. And I really vehemently oppose prosecuting anyone for “hate speech” or other speech. Sadly, the United States Attorney General seems to think there is both “free speech” and “hate speech,” which she believes is not free speech and might be something the DOJ targets. That is not the law and is indefensible.
The Attorney General, on Fox News, went so far as to claim the Christian baker should be forced to bake the cake for the gay wedding — an argument the Supreme Court rejected. In Pam Bondi’s case though, it was the threat to prosecute a business that opposed printing fliers for a Charlie Kirk rally. If Bondi wins that argument, you will be baking the cakes for the trans birthdays.
Heather Cox Richardson has one of the largest substack subscriber bases on the planet. She is a leftwing historian who many, many people on the left go to in order to put the day’s event’s in perspective. Essentially, she tells them what to believe. Here she is September 13th...
As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote about free speech yesterday:
"I'm just getting to Chris Cillizza's point here that free speech is not just for people who agree with you or me, as well as ourselves. It protects everybody, including people and speech that we think are personally disgusting and hateful.
And for the Attorney General of the United States (Pam Bomdi) to say that people who speak out against someone she supported (Charlie Kirk) is not covered by free speech... then we have an Attorney General who doesn't even understand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which is very dangerous, considering all the power that she has.
1 thing for a MAGA member on social media to not know what free speech is... we can tolerate that in our liberal democracy. But when someone with the power to prosecute people and put them in prison... have them arrested, then it becomes dangerous."
From The New Democrat
There are a couple points here from Erick Erickson that I want you to concentrate on and then I'll tell you what I think about them.
Erick Erickson talking about free speech in reference to Charlie Kirk's assassination last week:
"I think every American should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want. I’m a big proponent of the First Amendment.
I generally think Americans should be able to say whatever they want about whatever topic they want without fear of repercussions.
I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..
This is the key point here:
"I also think that when Americans say whatever they want, they should refrain from openly and publicly cheering on the assassination of any other American for also speaking. I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..
I literally asked Mr. Erickson yesterday on Twitter about in reference to his point:
"I think when people cross that line, there should be repercussions..
This is what I asked him:
"What should be the consequences for speech that you don't like?"
From Twitter. He hasn't responded to my question.
The 2nd point from Erick Erickson that I want you to concentrate on, is something that he said on Twitter yesterday:
"There is no such thing as hate speech, Pam Bondi."
From Twitter
Since apparently Mr. Erickson doesn't want to answer what he thinks should be the "consequences" for people who use speech that he doesn't like... I'm going to tell you what people are able to do and what they can do in response to speech that they don't like, including hate speech.
I'm not 1 to who argues that America is a free market completely, when it comes to our economy or anything else, including our ideas. But our liberal democratic system gives us a free market to express what we feel about others and the country as a whole... any topic that we want to express ourselves on. Our market is feee to the point that the ignorant and hateful have as much right to express themselves, as the enlightened and educated... anything that they want to talk about.
But since we do have a free market of ideas in America, we not only have a right to express ourselves, but others have the right to express (even in a hateful and ignorant way, as well as intelligent way) what they think about what we think and what we say. That's what's known as an exchange of ideas and open debate.
And to Mr. Erickson's 2nd point: ""There is no such thing as hate speech, Pam Bondi."
I don't even take the United Nations seriously on everything, let alone agree with them on everything. I mean the People's Republic of China (which is still a Communist State) is a member of their Human Rights Council. But I think their definition of hate speech is pretty solid:
"Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor".
Of course hate speech exists. And it's not just used against minorities, women of all backgrounds and gays in America. It's used against everybody, including Anglo-Saxon-Protestant males in America. Just because you believe hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, (which I do) doesn't mean you have to pretend that it doesn't exist. Even though you have the First Amendment right to do that.
You can also see this post on WordPress.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All relevant comments about the posts you are commenting on are welcome but spam and personal comments are not.