Public Advocate Asks: Will You Fight For Free Speech Over Leftist Screams, Lies and Violence
Public Advocate Will Fight For Free Speech Over Leftist Screams, Lies and Violence, Will You?
PA's Rob Brantley says:
It should go without saying that the use by the Left of the concept of "hate speech" is an attempt to squelch debate, subvert American/Western norms, and to restrict what the Right and normal American can do in terms of political and policy debate. In addition, and most importantly, anti-hate speech rules/regulations (eg, at colleges) or laws are inherently unconstitutional.
Firstly, in libel/slander law for instance, truth is an absolute defense. So when the Right -- or any Normal American or such group with no political affiliation -- counters the Left's response to one of our/his policies or programs, we could counter with -- "we are merely speaking the truth." For example, we could cite increased crime in communities with a large black or Latino population compared to the national average. This would be a fact cited with documentation from suitable sources, eg, DOJ's Bureau of Statistics, etc. Yet, in many cases when such facts have been cited, the Left howls in protest often claiming it a hate crime or hate speech for this fact having been pointed out. Of course, regardless of whether there is any documentation cited, there is the question of free speech. The use of the truth as a defense would apply also to Southern or American history.
Secondly, in the case in which there is no "truth" to be cited, but merely a political or policy viewpoint, Americans have the inherent constitutional right to express their views. This is the case with the "Build the Wall" signs that have proliferated at Stanford recently, which has caused another iteration of Leftist apoplexy, mouth-foaming, and "outrage," much of it of the faux-outrage variety. In this case, even though Stanford is a private institution, given its large access to federal funds via myriad sources makes it subject to some federal control, and certainly the US constitution.
Thirdly, one side's "hate speech" can certainly be another side's "love speech" -- or at least "truth speech." Each time the Left goes apoplectic on one of these exercises in the constitutional right to free speech and expression, we can counter with either, "sorry Lefty, but it's the truth. Anything truthful is by definition protected, and cannot possibly be hateful." Or, we could counter with, "sorry Lefty, whatever you consider hate speech we consider truth speech or patriotic speech. Get over it"
Fourthly, our side can counter most of the Left's shibboleths by claiming their rhetoric is hate speech, e.g., anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-heterosexual, anti-male, or anti-American, etc. In fact, we should begin doing this as it would place the Left on the defensive.
Moreover, one could make the argument that most of what comes out of Leftists' mouths is hate speech in the sense that we know that they hate real or normal Americans, the US/Western way of life and society, and any traditional value or standard that has served as the bulwark of Western/civilized society for millennia, etc. Their rhetoric against whites, men, stay-at-home mothers, pro-lifers, conservatives, Republicans, capitalists, and the categories cited above is evidence of their hatred. It is way past time that we challenge and sanction them, and not let them get away with this nonsense, along with the leftwing local governments and colleges that facilitate these unconstitutional actions such as hate speech codes.
Finally, we can say simply that the US constitution gives us the right to say whatever we want, whenever we want in terms of speech or expression, and we are not going to allow you (the Left) to unilaterally rewrite the US constitution, and these rights give us the right to offend you. You -- the Left -- have no right to not be offended. In fact, that you are offended, offends us. So there. Check Mate.
As an epilogue, we must create a legal resolve to challenge this nonsense. I know that there are numerous public law firms such as the Institute for Justice, the Rutherford Inst (religious liberty), etc., that litigate on behalf of conservatives, Christians, etc., but there are so many of these cases that the few legal firms on our side that do this are not sufficient.
CHRISTIAN AND PUBLIC SPIRITED LAWYERS PLEASE VOLUNTEER TODAY
Of course, there are independent lawyers who will take such cases, often with reduced fees, and the litigants can raise funding via independent means and online/social media applications. Regardless, we must fight these socialist/fascist/Marxist zealots who seek to intimidate us and squelch debate. Like a bully, if stood up to they are usually easily countered. But if not, then they will get away with their dastardly and evil actions.
'Build The Wall' Sign at Stanford University Declared "Hate Speech"
Boston Globe: The biggest threat to free speech? It's the left
WHO IS ROB BRANTLEY:
Eugene Delgaudio says of Rob Brantley: "For 30 years one of the sharpest and concise political commentators of practical grass roots conservative politics. Brantley has been a critic or supporter of public policy with accuracy and bite for a very long time. Brantley has skillfully helped conservative candidates and conservative groups to form policy."