Monthly Archives: March 2017

Once in America, people stopped and listened to what others had to say. Once, freedom of speech was for everyone. Now the norm is to shout at people, interrupt them, call them names, bully them, censor them, threaten individuals' livelihood/reputation, berate them on social media, close ones mind before you have all the facts, or just dont bother to listen, all because they hold a different opinion.

Contrary to what some think, the Constitution has not changed. Freedom of speech is not based on gender, religion, race or even political party. It guarantees that each of us has the right to be ourselves, to have our own opinions and to voice those opinions. Nowhere does it state that if you dont think like or hold the same opinion as me, you are stupid, you should shut up, or you dont belong.

Citizenship in America isnt easy. You need to stand up and fight for what is right. You need to defend everyones right to free speech, even the opinions of those who you disagree with. You need to make your voice heard by communicating with those elected or by getting involved in our political system. You need to be civil.

I realize that there are those who hate that America is made up of different cultures, races and religions. I realize that these individuals not only fear the freedoms we have but would like to take it all away. But this should not stop us from exercising our rights and freedoms. What it means is that we need to stand up for what is right, and defend her against those who would deny these rights and freedoms both here and abroad. And to those who disagree with all that I said, I will defend your right to disagree.

Lois Clark Oakville

Read more:
Stand up for everyone's freedom of speech - STLtoday.com

If Pastor Martin Niemllers poem First They Came was rewritten for todays free-speech battles, would the Ku Klux Klan be in the first line? Its hard to think of a more unsympathetic group, yet tyranny often starts small, sometimes targeting first those that are liked the least. A current court case involving the KKK serves as a warning: We are slowly, incrementally losing our freedom of speech.

At issue is the story of 22-year-old William D. Schenk, who spent five months in a Vermont jail after leaving Klan recruitment fliers at the Burlington homes of two women, one black and one Hispanic. Authorities accuse him of targeting the ladies, and in April 2016 he pleaded no contest to two counts of disorderly conduct, enhanced by a hate crime penalty based on prosecutors belief that Schenk was motivated by the victims race, reported the Burlington Free Press.

This plea was entered, however, under the condition that Schenk could appeal a judges decision to not dismiss the charges. That appeal is now being heard by the Vermont Supreme Court.

Unsurprisingly, the facts of the case are in dispute. Schenk claims he distributed the fliers to 50 homes; police say they found no recipients but the two minority women. Deputy Chittenden County States Attorney Aimee Griffin said it could be inferred that he targeted the women; Associate Justice John Dooley noted that theres no evidence Schenk knew the two women were minorities.Schenk is a North Carolina native and states that he conducted a similar recruitment drive in his home state.

Whats not in dispute is that if Schenk had been recruiting for the Republicans or Communist Party USA, he never would have landed in the dock. As the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)put it in papers filed on his behalf, [T]he government seeks to punish Schenk based solely on the content of his speech.

Furthermore, ACLU Staff Attorney Jay Diaz wrote in a prepared statement that while his organization considers the KKK a despicable hate groupthe Constitution does not allow the government to pick and choose which speech it will permit.

Another troubling aspect of this case is prosecutor Griffins insistence that, somehow, a government inference of motive makes otherwise lawful speech a crime. Its reminiscent of how the courts inferred that President Donald Trumps initial travel ban unfairly targeted Muslims based partially on comments he made in the past, on the campaign trail.

In other words, increasingly, the state is not judging acts and policies on their substance, but on what it divines their actuators motives to have been. But is this a government of laws or a sideshow telepathist routine? Its the thought that counts only applies to disappointed gift recipients.

Addressing the dangerous precedent suggested by Griffins inference that Schenk targeted the women, Associate Justices Harold Eaton and Marilyn Skoglund both asked whether, under Griffins argument, anti-abortion groups that distribute fliers to pregnant women could face charges, reported Seven Days.

Griffin rejected the analogy, stating that the KKKs history of violence created a more profound threat. Of course, given that left-wing groups have often unfairly, but successfully, portrayed pro-lifers as historically violent, the judges question was apt.

Lets try this on for size: What about Marxists putting recruitment literature on bankers stoops? Given that communists murdered 94 million people during the 20th centuryand target capitalists in particularcould we view this as a hate crime? And what if the New Black Panther Party put fliers on whites doorsteps?

Upon accepting the precedent that government can stifle speech based on content and motivation, playing mind reader, who will be allowed to say what would be determined by political favor.

Is this even remotely responsible, undermining our constitutional freedoms in the name of stifling the speech of a scorned and reviled .001 percent of the population? The First Amendments purpose is to protect unpopular speech; popular speechs popularity is usually all the protection it needs.

The Schenk case reflects the increasing acceptance of the notion of actionable hate speech, something explicitly criminalized in other Western nations. With hate always defined to be, quite curiously, synonymous with political incorrectness, such laws have claimed victims ranging from politicians to pundits to performers to pastors to peons, all targeted mainly for criticizing Islam and, less frequently, homosexuality. Worse still, were on the road to embracing these laws ourselves.

The problem began when the term hate speech originated (circa 1990) and then was cemented in our culture as a separate category of speech (years later). People would say things such as, to use the example of attorney Gloria Alreds hysterical 2006 shriek about a comedians epithet-laced, on-stage meltdown, This is not free speech; this is hate speech!

If you continually differentiate hate speech from free speech, people will begin to view the former as a separate species of speechnot protected by the First Amendment.

Now, for just about as long as weve had the hate-speech species, weve punished it situationallywhen associated with hate crimes. Consider: Something is generally identified as a hate crime by way of whats expressed during its commission. An example is assaulting somebody while directing racial epithets.

Its also considered an aggravating factor. For instance, if the assault would normally involve only four years incarceration, the hate-crime enhancement might bring an additional six. In other words, were already punishing hate speech within a certain context.

The problem is that upon establishing hate speech as a category and punishing it within one context, its just a short leap to punishing it within other contexts.

The Schenk case represents this (d)evolution. Where once the speech had to be uttered during a crime to implicitly be deemed unlawful, now the speech alone may be considered unlawful when directed at a certain type of person.

None of this is any surprise, with politics being downstream of an ever-degrading culture. When I was in elementary school we still heard the rhyme, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Oh, words can hurt feelings, draw tears or even start wars, but thats not the point. The saying instilled tolerance for unwelcome speech, a prerequisite for maintaining respect for free and open discourse.

Its clear that todays kidser, snowflakes, dont hear the rhyme much anymore. Instead, their fragility is nurtured as theyre taught about triggers, microaggressions, or whatever is the latest Oh, the humanity! term describing things that just shouldnt offend their ethereal ears. They are provided safe spaces where, at least momentarily, their delusive bubble wont be burst. Is it any wonder they want to turn the whole country into a safe space? (This recent survey finds growing intolerance for controversial speech among the young.)

It should be mentioned that hate-speech prohibitionswhether foreign laws or domestic campus codesrarely affect Klansmen, partially because there are so few Klansmen. Rather, they mainly stifle substantive debate over Islam, race, immigration and fashionable sexual agendas. Theyre also dishonest: Their main focus isnt hate, but what the Thought Police hate.

A good way to start draining the legislative swamp is to get the government out of the doubleplusgood thought business and rescind hate-crime law. Barring this, all we can do is ask: Whose principles will become tomorrows hate?

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke)has written for The Hill, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily and American Thinker. He has also contributed to college textbooks published by Gale Cengage Learning, has appeared on television and is a frequent guest on radio.

See more here:
The KKK Canary: How We're Losing Our Freedom of Speech - Observer

A lot of folks in our society today dont seem to respect or fully understand our constitutionally protected right of free speech.

Ideologically-driven leftists who refuse to let those with whom they disagree speak at university/college campus events, town hall meetings, and other public venues epitomize that selfish lack of respect. And there are often no negative, personal consequences for their impudent (sometimes violent) behavior.

Fortunately, the silent majority prefers a saner society and wants no part of any movement that promotes and/or tolerates such flagrant disregard for constitutional principles (including the right to peaceably assemble, which does not cover looting, destroying property, throwing rocks at cops, etc.). Leftists will continue to lose support because of this.

Having the audacity to believe that none of us should be allowed to speak or write in a manner that offends others is simply delusional. Can you imagine what our society would be like if that idea were to somehow be enforced? Who would decide what is offensive? Communist dictatorship, here we come.

We should all cherish our First Amendment right of free speech. For example, I not only disagree with probably 80-plus percent of what William Windsor writes, I find much of it to be quite offensive. Does that mean I would advocate prohibiting him from expressing himself the way he does? Of course not!

Make a note, Linda Nash. Nobody can hurt my feelings (or yours) unless I (or you) allow it. Like it or not, we adults cannot legitimately blame another person for how we feel. Thats our responsibility. And nobody else can be held responsible if some adult stops talking or writing due to fear of being criticized in no uncertain terms.

Some would say that we should all be able to disagree without being disagreeable. What about those whose limited communication skills preclude their always being able to do that? Should they not be allowed to express their opinions? Walking on eggshells is (as often as not) ineffective, unhealthy, and unrealistic.

Attempts to control others via what is politely termed political correctness has been carried to ridiculous extremes by guess who? Leftists, of course. Another reason they are losing ground.

Freedom of speech is a very broad concept in America. Only certain narrowly defined categories of speech are considered illegal e.g., credible murder or terrorist threats, sedition (such cases are rare), and (sometimes) incitements to violence. Hate speech per se is actually legal.

Our First Amendment right of speech is precious. Its there to protect those with whom we disagree. And since nobody has ever had a single idea that we would all agree with, arent we lucky our constitution is there to protect us from tyrants would choose to stifle us?

A few of my favorite quotes:

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. Salmon Rushdie

So long as they dont get violent, I want everyone to say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me. Albert Einstein

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Benjamin Franklin

How brave a thing is freedom of speech, which made the Athenians so far exceed every other state in Hellas [ancient Greece] in greatness. Herodotus

Fred Bindewald

Fort Madison

Read the original post:
Freedom of speech is a precious right - Fort Madison Daily Democrat