Where do you go for free speech now?

If you’re unaware, Gab.ai was created as an alternative social media platform for those of a conservative mind or, more importantly, an actual free speech mind.

It was devised to be the alternative to Twitter and Facebook — mostly Twitter, as it has a Twitter-like feel to it and limits the number of characters per entry.

Initially it took, literally, a few months for me and others to register for Gab.ai due to its popularity. Once on, however, I was a bit chagrined by its klunky interface and what I considered to be its less-than-intuitive interface. Resultingly I wasn’t as active there as I was on Twitter. Gab needed then and now to update its interface and make it more intuitive. There. I said it.

That written, however, there’s a new threat from the Left. The GatewayPundit.com writes:

Twitter Rival GAB Served Notice its Registrar Will Seize its Domain if Not Changed Due to GAB Promoting Free Speech

by Jim Hoft

Twitter rival GAB was served notice by its domain registrar that it has 5 days to transfer its domain or they will seize it.

View image on Twitter

At the same time GAB is suing Google for anti trust violations.

According to David Z. Morris at Fortune magazine, GAB supports Milo Yiannopoulous whom Morris slanders by calling him a white supremacist who was banned from Google for his racially offensive harassment of a black actress –

According to David Z. Morris at Fortune magazine, GAB supports Milo Yiannopoulous whom Morris slanders by calling him a white supremacist who was banned from Google for his racially offensive harassment of a black actress –

Gab, a social media platform that touts its openness to any and all forms of speech, has sued Google for refusing to list the Gab Android App on the Google Play store. Gab claims, according to Ars Technica, that Google denied its listing to protect a data-sharing agreement with Twitter, potentially violating antitrust rules. But the stakes here may be more about perception than the law.

Twitter used to think of itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” But the internet obviously took that as a challenge, breeding dozens of professional trolls like Milo Yiannopoulous, who was banned from Twitter after organizing a racially offensive harassment campaign against actor Leslie Jones.

Yiannopoulos, along with many white supremacists and other prominent figures of the so-called “alt-right,” have since migrated to Gab as their primary public platform. Antitrust lawyer Mark Patterson told Ars Technica that if Google could show that they chose not to allow Gab into the Play Store because of possible reputational damage from that strong association with hate groups, the antitrust claim would have little chance of success.

Even if it is summarily thrown out of court, Gab’s suit will help the nascent platform further establish itself as an alternative to Silicon Valley’s center-left cultural norms. Those have been on display recently in Google’s move to silence critics at think tanks and internally, and in a broader tech-world crackdown on formerly-tolerated hate speech.

Is this nothing more than the Left — AGAIN — doing its level best to remove free speech from the internet? Of course it is. From “complaints.”

Morris is not correct in his outrageous allegations about GAB and Milo and he should be ashamed.  More likely Milo was kicked out of Twitter because he was a successful conservative gay man.  Liberals hate successful conservative gay men.

Twitter over the past year terminated the accounts of  numerous successful conservatives like Milo during the election and prevented tweets from conservative outlets like this one from being wide spread.  Twitter decides which groups are hate groups through their own fascist interpretation of what is a hate group.  Any successful conservative apparently fits their definition of a hate group.

The crux of the biscuit is this.

GAB capitalized on the left wing bias of social site Twitter and now is being attacked for allowing free speech on its site by Google and the alt left mainstream media (MSM).

Gab.ai’s owner, Andrew Torba, wrote at Medium.com:

We knew this day would come and now we have entered a crossroads with a very binary decision: remove one post or lose our domain and thus the entire website.

Our choice was very clear to me. The post needs to come down. If it does not, we lose our domain. To my knowledge there are no pro-free speech domain registrars and that is a massive problem. Our only other option now would be to play a cat and mouse game by transferring our domain to another registrar. Others who have attempted to play this game have failed and even had their domain seized completely from under them. We will not play these games. We have little choice, for now.

The free and open internet as we know it is under attack. It is centralized and controlled by no more than a handful of companies who provide these services:

  • Hosting

  • DDoS protection

  • Payment Processing

  • Domain Registrars

  • Mobile device hardware and software distribution

This is called a clue as far as I’m concerned. But read on.

Without any of these things an individual website can not possibly compete and operate at scale. If left unchecked, these centralized platforms will continue their dominance and control the means of all information, personal data, and communication on the internet.

It’s not too late to save the free and open internet. Decentralized platforms built on the blockchain (including Gab in the near future) will inevitably give the power and control to The People and make the internet censorship-proof.

Gab wants to lead the creation of the next level of the internet. If Web 2.0 was about centralized, social, and mobile networks: Web 3.0 will be a decentralized, blockchain-based, radically transparent, people-powered internet infrastructure.

We are actively looking for a new registrar. This post will hopefully inspire other teams to start building or attract talented engineers to Gab who want to help us protect the free and open web. Until then, we will continue to build and fight for the freedoms we cherish.

What is it, then, that Conservative speech truly needs? Easy answer: sufficient cash to own and wield its own domain registrar, its own hosting, its own DDoS protection, payment processing, and mobile device hardware and software distribution.

I see this as an absolutely enormous vacuum.

Which needs to be filled with Conservative cash.

BZ

Leftists: speech is brutality

As long as it fails to correspond to their version and values attached to speech. Any speech. All speech.

And to think we once had a First Amendment.

Stop. Did you realize that the United States is the only major Western country that does not have an official and onerous “hate speech” criminal law on its books?

In my mind, that bespeaks much more about all of those other countries than it does about the United States.

But isn’t some speech the equivalent of brutality? Can’t much of speech be the equivalent of brutality? Let’s consult a Leftist psychology professor.

When Is Speech Violence?

by Lisa Feldmann Barrett

Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?

The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.

Wait. So can eggs. Cow farts. A blue ringed octopus. Loose lug nuts. The cargo door from a 747. A bee. Bad spinach.

If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?

There you go. Speech is in fact violent. With that in mind, I wonder just what kinds of speech Leftists will consider violent because, after all, the author is quite the Leftist herself? Moreover, who will make these weighty decisions?

This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”

Ah, here we go. Safe spaces. Coloring books. Safety pins, trigger warnings and microaggressions. The only things truly required at universities any more are drool cups. And sippy cups.

The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.

Again: define “abusive.” In whose eyes? And who makes that ultimate determination?

What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.

Wait. Are these hateful words. Is this an advocacy of violence?

A history of violence? On whose side?

What of the loving and peaceful Diablo College professor Eric Clanton? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be actual violence committed by a Leftist on camera.

Then there is Leftist professor Kevin Allred from Montclair State University who Tweeted last Friday night, July 28th: “Trump is a fucking joke. This is all a sham. I wish someone would just shoot him outright.”

What does that sound like to you? Just a wee tinge of violent speech? Enough to nut up a snowflake? Not necessarily for, you see, it is all quite topic-dependent.

To me it sounds like the environment one customarily encounters on any given campus in the United States when any student, singly or in a group, begins speech which is conservative in nature. In this aspect Barrett makes a perfect point. But not the one she intended.

That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.

Let me unpack the obvious here, something few people point out. Milo is or isn’t anyone’s particular cup of tea. Frankly, I enjoy his willingness to display pushback right in the revered houses of “education” so unfailingly determined to restrict speech. But the reason debate isn’t generally acquired in a Milo campus presentation is because of two aspects: 1. He thinks on his feet with remarkable rapidity, and 2. He is quick to throw facts and situations back at the commenters and questioners in the audience. Leftists don’t operate in the sphere of facts but instead of emotions.

That was pretty emotional, I’d wager. Thanks, professor. Nice advocacy of violence.

By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.

Then Barrett encountered a problem. She appeared on the Tucker Carlson show.

Leftists are at least nothing if not consistent. They only deign to answer questions fitting their narrative. And certainly not the questions I posed as did Tucker: define abuse and tell me who becomes the ultimate determinant of same?

Leftists would resoundingly answer in unison to the one question: government should be the determinant by way of laws restricting speech. Damn that First Amendment.

Oddly enough an article exists in New York magazine countering Barrett’s argument.

Stop Telling Students Free Speech Is Traumatizing Them

by Jesse Singal

One fairly common idea that pops up again and again during the endless national conversation about college campuses, free speech, and political correctness is the notion that certain forms of speech do such psychological harm to students that administrators have an obligation to eradicate them — or, failing that, that students have an obligation to step in and do so themselves (as has happened during recent, high-profile episodes involving Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, which turned violent).

Agreed. Just ask snowflakes. I love that word. It’s so apropos.

So it’s weird, in light of all this, to see the claim that free speech on campus leads to serious psychological harm being taken seriously in the New York Times, and weirder still to see it argued in a manner draped in pseudoscience. Yet that’s what happened. In a Sunday Review column headlined “When Is Speech Violence?” Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, explains that “scientifically speaking,” the idea that physical violence is more harmful than emotional violence is an oversimplification. “Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.” Chronic stress can also shrink your telomeres, she writes — “little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes” — bringing you closer to death.

Is this the same science to which Al Gore shakingly refers? The same science the Australian Weather Bureau used to cobble together false climate numbers?

This is a weak and confused argument. Setting aside the fact that no one will ever be able to agree on what’s “abusive” versus what’s “merely offensive,” the articles Barrett links to are mostly about chronic stress — the stress elicited by, for example, spending one’s childhood in an impoverished environment of serious neglect and violence. Growing up in a dangerous neighborhood with a poor single mother who has to work so much she doesn’t have time to nurture you is not the same as being a college student at a campus where Yiannopoulos is coming to speak, and where you are free to ignore him or to protest his presence there.

Thank you. Finally, someone points out the Captain Obvious aspects of campus speech and pretty much speech everywhere.

And that’s this. You have two legs and at least something of a brain. You can decide to leave the room, turn off the television, stop reading, leave the website, put down the magazine, turn off the iPad, etc. Any number of logical adult decisions can be made. Logical. Adult. Decisions.

This is apparently a concept with which Leftists, snowflakes, raindrops and all makes and models of emos are stultifyingly unfamiliar.

Nowhere does Barrett fully explain how the presence on campus of a speaker like Yiannopoulos for a couple of hours is going to lead to students being afflicted with the sort of serious, chronic stress correlated with health difficulties. It’s simply disingenuous to compare the two types of situations — in a way, it’s an insult both to people who do deal with chronic stress and to student activists.

Thank you. Again more shocking clarity and honesty.

Now, it would be just as much of a stretch to say that a single column like Barrett’s could cause students to self-traumatize as it would be to say that an upcoming Yiannopoulos appearance could traumatize them. But in the aggregate, if you tell students over and over and over that certain variants of free speech — variants which are ugly, but which are aired every moment of every day on talk radio — are traumatizing them, it really could do harm. 

Yes. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

And there’s no reason to go down this road, because there’s no evidence that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus is harming students in some deep psychological or physiological way (with the exception of outlying cases involving preexisting mental-health problems). This is a silly idea that should be retired from the conversation about free speech on campus.

From whom does trauma occur to others? Leftists.

From whom does violence on campus occur? Leftists.

Who cannot brook or tolerate opposing viewpoints, thoughts or exposition?

Leftists.

BZ

 

SCOTUS ruling on the First Amendment

Sadly, this slipped by me until now.

The US Supreme just recently released a terribly important opinion on a First Amendment case,

One that will and has upset and pissed off Leftists nationally and globally.

From the WashingtonPost.com:

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

by Eugene Volokh

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

Yes. You read that right. This was a unanimous decision, 8 to 0 (Neil Gorsuch was not on the court when the case was argued). The US Supreme Court incontrovertibly and undeniably upheld our right to free speech. Even the Leftists.

How sad to think that I would — even for one moment — be concerned about this case, as clear to me as it appeared.

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.

In other words, speech that simply makes you “uncomfortable” and prompts you to head for your “safe space” is still protected speech in these United States of America, no matter what anyone happens to say or think on US college campuses.

I wonder, however, what would happen if I were to attempt to register “The Crackas” as my band’s trademark when it consisted of all Caucasoids?

Oh yes. This: not one fuck given or one shit proffered.

GOWPs. Guilty Overeducated White People.

Even Noam Chomsky believes in free speech, and on campuses.

My final comment: were you aware that the United States of America is one of the very, very few Western Civilization countries left that does not have a “hate speech” law guaranteeing prosecution of that vastly nebulous phrase?

Be thankful.

Be very, very thankful.

But be very, very mindful.

BZ

 

Seattle gun tax = less crime

Right?

Wrong.

From FoxNews.com:

Seattle gun tax failure? Firearm sales plummet, violence spikes after law passes

by Dan Springer

When the City of Seattle passed a tax on all sales of guns and ammunition, the measure was hailed as a way to defray the rising costs of gun violence.

But since the tax took effect, those costs have only risen as gun violence in the city has surged. And the tax has apparently brought in much less than city leaders projected it would.

“How much data do you need?” asked Dave Workman, senior editor of TheGunMag.com and member of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The data says the law has failed to prevent what they promised it would prevent.”

Oh come on. Let’s be honest because the Leftists certainly won’t. First and foremost, this is another Leftist assault on the Second Amendment, which Leftists despise along with other aspects of the Bill of Rights — to include the First Amendment.

This was how it was portrayed in 2015, with Tucker Carlson responding to Abby Huntsman (ironic?).

You have but to look at and examine a host of violent events in American universities this year and last where speakers were threatened, actually struck, and either physically removed or had their presentations canceled because of Leftist violence and protests.

Leftists and Demorats know that when you have effectively eliminated the Second Amendment you are quite well on your way to eliminating the First Amendment and that is one of their ultimate goals: control of every aspect of your life, including your speech and, literally, your thoughts. When you cannot fight back you cannot stem their tide of monolithic policy, philosophy, suppression and control.

Let me again state the obvious. Those conservative or Republicans who insist the Second Amendment exists to allow good Americans to hunt or sport shoot couldn’t be more wrong. The Second Amendment exists so that good Americans are sufficiently armed in order to stave off attempts by the government to corrupt, arrest, enslave, oppress or subjugate the people of the United States. No more, no less.

Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess introduced the tax in 2015. It puts a $25 tax on every firearm sold in the city and up to 5 cents per round of ammunition. The measure easily passed and took effect January 1, 2016. Comparing the first five months of 2017 with the same period before the gun tax went into effect, reports of shots fired are up 13 percent, the number of people injured in shootings climbed 37 percent and gun deaths doubled, according to crime statistics from the Seattle Police Department.

Tucker Carlson spoke last week about the so-called “unforeseen consequences” of the Seattle gun tax with anti-gun activist Mark Glaze which were, of course, entirely foreseeable.

Here’s what Leftists really want to take effect, up to and until they can literally remove your firearms and ammunition from your homes. Don’t think there isn’t already a $1,000 gun tax per firearm in effect. From ATR.org:

$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as ‘Role Model’ for States

by John Kartch

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A $1,000 per gun tax should serve as a “role model” for states, according to the governor of the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, which imposed the $1,000 gun tax earlier this month (2016). An idea first endorsed by Hillary Clinton in 1993, steep gun taxes have now taken hold in Cook County, Ill. the city of Seattle, and now a U.S. territory.

As reported by the Saipan Tribune:

The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres defended the CNMI’s new gun control laws on Friday as a law that could be “a role model” for other U.S. states and jurisdictions facing seemingly uncontrolled and continued gun violence.

The administration was responding to queries regarding its position on recent reports that the a legal challenge to the new law, Public law 19-42, was likely, particularly over a provision that assesses a $1,000 excise tax on pistols.

The threat of such a tax serving as a role model for other politicians to impose is not an idle one.

Idle? Hell, it’s admired, embraced and salivated-over. Though a few years old, here is another greatly-admired idea from Demorats and Leftists. You can thank your lucky stars that another President Clinton isn’t occupying the Oval Office.

The government and local entities cannot yet physically confiscate your weapons. But they can certainly tax their sales and restrict and/or limit and tax ammunition as well.

Dave Workman doesn’t criticize the study, but he does think the city council should have predicted the results of the gun tax, such as gun dealers leaving with no drop in gun ownership. As for the gun violence, he says that too should not surprise anyone.

“All these gun control laws affect the wrong people,” Workman said. “The gang bangers don’t go in and buy ammunition at retail, at least not around here. It certainly hasn’t stopped them from getting their hands on firearms.”

Tales from Captain Obvious fail to be read by Demorats and Leftists. They continue to double down on laws oppressing the wrong people. Criminals, on the other hand, by definitions printed in their job descriptions, don’t give a shit about your puny laws.

Finally, Colion Noir dares to speak truth to power and truth to you and me.

Gun control is about one thing only. Removing your freedoms. Ask yourselves: just why is it that even Europeans are wishing they had their own Second Amendment these days?

You know the answer.

BZ

 

Your dying First Amendment

Killed by Leftists, Demorats, Progressives, anarchists and, of all people, aided and abetted by the American Media Maggots.

Whose speech and freedoms will likewise be suppressed.

This used to be true. Is it now?

And even some Republicans who lack actual testosterone or estrogen.

Wait. I take that back. Too many Republicans operate on estrogen though they appear as males.

Stop. Perfect time for this video.

So why the big concern over freedom of speech? Because of past, recent and continuing incidents involving the lack of it on American college campuses. This video summarizes appropriately.

That was the view of a college professor, who accurately reflects the views on way too many American college and university campuses today. Most of these are, of course, funded by American Taxpayer cash.

Your First Amendment freedoms are at stake.

Further, your overall American freedoms are also at stake which, of course, is what makes this nation more exceptional than most any other.

What other nation has this:

Amendment I

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.

Leftists and Demorats will tell you our nation is evil on its face and is everything but exceptional.

But where do Leftists or Demorats actually mention freedom? Where is it that they wish to add to your freedoms in any fashion, instead of removing them? Removing them and then occasionally selling them back to you at a massive profit? Come on, Al Gore only wants $15 trillion of your taxpayer dollars.

Those freedoms buttressed and solidified by the sacrifice of 419,000 US soldiers and civilians in WWII. Yet what passes for state-of-the-art thought on US freedom of speech today by a politician — a Demorat politician mind you — is this.

He couldn’t be more wrong. The First Amendment exists not to protect pablum speech, but specifically challenging speech.

First, let’s be honest: there is no real definition for “hate speech.” It, like pornography, is in the eye of the beholder. The unsaid crux of the biscuit is, naturally: just who determines “hate speech”? That is the key.

Courts have ruled that the First doesn’t protect outright threats, speech that would tend to provoke a personal fight, and child pornography. “Hate speech” is not included as an exception.

KKK speech is protected. Symbols, like a burning cross, are protected. The Westboro Baptist Church is protected.

An interesting point from Politifact:

The Supreme Court has established a general principle that a government administrator can’t decide to charge a group a higher fee for event security based on anticipated public reaction to the content of the event, and a lower court found that this applies to colleges, too. So if Berkeley is basing its security decisions on what it expects Coulter to say, that could pose a problem.

We heard what one professor thinks of free speech. Another example of what passes for state-of-the-art thought on US freedom of speech today by “educators” is this, from the NYTimes.com:

What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech

by Ulrich Baer

Widespread caricatures of students as overly sensitive, vulnerable and entitled “snowflakes” fail to acknowledge the philosophical work that was carried out, especially in the 1980s and ’90s, to legitimate experience — especially traumatic experience — which had been dismissed for decades as unreliable, untrustworthy and inaccessible to understanding.

Translated: the surfeit of emotional, sensitive snowflakes are in fact traumatized by certain speech. Their horror should not be delegitimized.

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

Translated: censorship isn’t really the removal of free speech; it’s a guarantee not to offend. Offense is a much worse condition than that of the removal of speech itself. Restricted speech is a “public good.”

But listen to this.

In such cases (“when those views invalidate the humanity of some people”) there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In today’s age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.

Perfect. Who needs actual speech? In public? Just go to the internet. Meanwhile, we as Leftists will keep our politically-correct stranglehold on what it is you can hear and read.

The great value and importance of freedom of expression, for higher education and for democracy, is hard to overestimate. But it has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generation’s oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth.

Again, Leftists proving there is no real “good” or “bad.” There are simply events that occur on a sliding scale created of their own highly-informed thinking.

We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.

You see? A “sophisticated understanding.” This is akin to saying that because some poor people cannot actually afford to go out and purchase a firearm, we need to eliminate the Second Amendment.

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks.

Uh, yes it is. You lie. The exceptions are delineated above as determined in US courts.

It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community.

Now it gets grotty. At first blush the paragraph above is nothing but mush. I provide this accurate translation for you: if only one of a delineated set of protected species are offended, even in the slightest, that speech is deemed hateful.

Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

Translated: speech is now hateful when you question someone.

Here is a sentence that doesn’t even warrant reproducing in its entirety.

Unlike today’s somewhat reflexive defenders of free speech.  .  .

“Reflexive defenders of free speech.” In times past that was considered a positive feature, a wonderful attribute. Now, according to “educators,” that’s a glitch, a quirk, a serious problem requiring repair.

What is under severe attack, in the name of an absolute notion of free speech, are the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse.

Please tell me, ladies and gentlemen, where the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse are being quashed? Examples please. Be specific.

We should thank the student protestors, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other “overly sensitive” souls for keeping watch over the soul of our republic.

Of course. Thanks, Berkeley and other US universities, for rioting and burning and blockading and threatening so that opposing views cannot be remotely considered on campus. They really are “closed campuses” with regard to alternate views, theories and speech. Closed. Walled off. It is truly suppression by violence. On the part of Leftists.

Here is what Judge Andrew Napolitano said of this specific editorial.

Light to make the cockroaches scatter.

You know you have a serious problem when even Bill Maher skewers Leftists blocking free speech.

That’s an individual on a TV show. What happens when you have a mammoth tech giant like Google censoring from within? From DCClothesline.com:

Google’s Schmidt: “We’re Not Arguing For Censorship, We’re Arguing Just Take It Off The Page”

by Chris Menahan

Google is not going to “censor” their search results, they’re just going to take search results “off [their] page” to “essentially have you not see it.”

Say what?

In a video from March 23 that’s just now going viral, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was asked by Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo how they plan to deal with extremist content. Eric Schmidt responded by mixing in “fake news” with “extremist things” and suggested their computer algorithms will determine what’s true:

“My own view on most of this sort of extremist things as well as fake news in general is that it’s essentially a ranking problem. We’re very good at detecting what’s the most relevant and what’s the least relevant. It should be possible for computers to detect malicious, misleading and incorrect information and essentially have you not see it. We’re not arguing for censorship, we’re arguing just take it off the page, put it somewhere else.”

Read that again. “We’re not arguing for censorship, we’re arguing just take it off the page, put it somewhere else.”

And this isn’t censorship how? You’re taking it off the page. Where “else” are you putting it?

You see, of course, just who makes this determination of censorship or hate speech, yes? Me? No. You? No. Leftists.

As far as Leftists are concerned, it is precisely your freedoms that put the world in its predicament today.

It is your freedom of speech that suppresses any number of individuals and makes them feel less a person. It is your Second Amendment that stacks bodies like cordwood and forces young black males to kill each other in large urban venues. It is your ability to drive where you want when you want that has polluted our skies and clogged our cities. It is your ability to eat what you want that has resulted in obese young people and poor people. It is your freedom to manufacture goods and create a mighty industrial base that has resulted in competition globally, which is a terrible idea and rife with pollution, greed, capitalism and consumerism. It is your freedom to regulate borders which has resulted in people unable to enter the US and partake of the Free Cheese available within. It is your freedom to be independent and sovereign which has closed off globalism and failed to consolidate power into a smaller, brighter, more enlightened band of clear-thinking individuals. It is the freedom to embrace religion which creates societal judgments which conflict with secularism. Islam not included.

When you have no Second Amendment, you have no First Amendment. When you have no First Amendment you have no freedom whatsoever.

As Europe is in a terrible cultural war with globalism and sovereignty, so is the United States.

“Hate speech”? I think you know who determines that and why.

Power. Control.

BZ