How about the fact that it was America, a country with a sordid history of slavey and virtually no limits on free speech, which elected a black man President. Twice. Similarly, why is anti-Semitism so much more entrenched in parts of Europe than in the United States, despite all the “hate speech” laws across the pond. I’ll tell you why, becausefree speech works and censorship doesn’t.
– From the post: Speechless – UCLA Engages in Absurd, Anti-Intellectual and Dangerous Attack on Campus Free Speech
Before I get into this piece, it’s very important for me to state how little respect I have for anyone who judges people based on anything other than the actions of that specific individual. I think most readers of this site are enlightened and intelligent enough to understand this position. Not only do I find such generalizations to be ignorant and foolish, but I’m also well aware that the status quo intentionally pushes such divisions so that the citizenry remain too busy fighting amongst themselves to unite and take on the real cancer that is the elite established oligarchy.
With that out of the way, I still think what former U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh did is noteworthy. Although I find his commentary revolting, I would defend his constitutional right to do so to the grave.
Just in case you aren’t aware of what he’s referring to in his dare to Loretta Lynch, the following should get you caught up.
From Mediaite’s article: AG Loretta Lynch Promises to ‘Take Action’ Against ‘Anti-Muslim Rhetoric’
In remarks before the Muslim Advocates Dinner Thursday night, Attorney General Loretta Lynch told attendees that the Justice Department will take action against “anti-Muslim rhetoric” and “violent talk.”
“Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech,” she said. “but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals… when we see that, we will take action.”
“I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted,” she concluded.
First Amendment scholar and Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokhpoints out that anti-Muslim speech– even speech that encourages violence but doesn’t include a specific threat– is constitutionally protected. “If the attorney general is trying to suggest that the Justice Department will generally prosecute people for speech that ‘edges towards violence,’ or for ‘anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric,’ that’s bad,” he writes.
Indeed, First Amendment law is pretty well established on this point, which makes Loretta Lynch’s commentary so troublesome. Personally, I think she’s trying to instill fear in the American populace so that it thinks twice before speaking. This is completely and totally unacceptable behavior from the Attorney General of these United States.
So former Congressman Joe Walsh took to video and dared her to sue him.
For related articles, see:
Video of the Day – A Lecture on Cry Bullies, Microaggressions & Victimhood Culture
Protesters at Smith College Demand Journalists Swear Loyalty Oath Before Reporting on Them
Not a Safe Space – Canadian University Suspends Yoga Class After Students Become Offended
From Protesting Vietnam to Demanding “Safe Spaces” – What Happened to America’s College Kids?
Speechless – UCLA Engages in Absurd, Anti-Intellectual and Dangerous Attack on Campus Free Speech
Rutgers University Warns Students – “There is No Such Thing as Free Speech”
A Professor Speaks Out – How Coddled, Hyper Sensitive Undergrads are Ruining College Learning
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
Hmmm. What about Louis Farrakhan speaking hatred and invoking violence toward whites? What about the new black panther party calling for the murder of whites?? What about the muslims’ hate speech and threats toward Americans?? Preferred classes,Loretta??
Certainly he should not be muzzled, for that is the escape of a totalitarian government. But he should be challenged, and that is unfortunately where society fails. People are allowed to make absurd claims, tell outright lies, and make things up out of whole cloth without being challenged. Yes, the lapdog media are guilty, but so are almost all citizens. Walsh makes the absurd claim that Muslims don’t fit in. I suppose he thinks that the White Man “fit in” when first arriving in what is now the US. Native Americans might take a different view. And then there are all the immigrant groups, etc.. Of course none of them “fit in.”
I agree with you. The problem is there seems to be no sane middle ground where absurd claims–either condemning entire religions, races or other classes or moving heaven and earth to muzzle “micro-aggression”–is present. Extremist voices on both ends of the spectrum outshout anyone else. I’m with Michael, you have a right to say anything. But I have a right to clean your clock logically and make you look like the buffoon you are, too. The problem is we have enough moderate thinkers…we just don’t have enough moderate speakers.
I WILL NOT shut up when someone tries to drive the direction of comments to either of those extremes. It just takes each of us being willing to think clearly, stand up and not allow the buffoon to win the field by default.
I would say you both are clueless and constrained by PC.
If it is not TOTALLY OBVIOUS to anyone with eyes that TOO MANY muslims refuse to assimilate then there is no hope for you.
Oil and water, no doubt about it and Americans should not have to shoulder the responsibility to figure out who is who.
Walsh is absolutely right. These muslims DON’T fit in. They’re here to destroy all Christians and Jews and even the atheists who are siding with them right now because of their hatred for Christians. As for the Indians, or ‘Native Americans’ as you liberals call them, they have it made. I wish I was an Indian. No taxes, everything free and a big bonus check every month if some casino has a tribe’s name pasted in front of it.
So I guess threatening to lock people in cages for what they say isn’t “violent speech.” A specific threat of violence indeed. This is the main problem with government, the supposed rules never apply to those in power.
Okay, so the first Amendment guarantees “freedom of speech”.
So now, ‘we ask what is meant by this term… as it was understood (defined) in 1791… or as it is currently understood (defined)?’
And, if you choose the latter, where is the constitutional amendment that changed its definition?
According to my research (original and un-sanitized English histories, official documents issued by numerous founding assemblies, other – but no opinions of lone individuals), the concept of free speech was first publicly declared in the Petition of Rights by the English parliament of 1628. Its members’ intention was to protect themselves from retaliation by crown and privileged monopolies for members’ remarks / complaints made in parliament.
Actually, an answer to my questions is probably irrelevant; for, American governments are agents that posses powers by delegation. Since there is no delegation that allows government to censor speech, we, from common-law principles, have so-called “freedom of speech’. And it is limited only by common law principles of slander, libel and any other kind of expression that might harm an individual, his property or reputation.
Nothing more is needed.
In other words, we discuss the most fundamental of natural laws: a) the right to do or express anything we please and b) the requirement that we enjoy – or suffer – consequences of our actions or expressions.
It is the purpose of due process of law to enforce the second part of this natural law.
What’s more, we don’t need government or constitutions to achieve this end.
Instead, we need First-Amendment assemblies to guarantee this right and any others that could be imagined.
Unfortunately, there’s hardly an American who knows the power available thru such assemblies, or many rights and powers that were won by the Revolution.
Take, for example, the right of consent and the right to withhold taxes until the government redresses grievances.
One: American Founders repeatedly declared that “no man is obligated to obey any law or pay any tax unless he has given consent to it”. Did they mean this literally? Of course they did. From the first English settlement to the Revolution this was how affairs of the colonies were managed. Every “law” and every “tax” had its origin in contracts between colonial assemblies and those who petitioned for redress of grievances. The terms of the contract were sometimes referred to as “laws” of the contract while its money payments were treated as “taxes”. And only petitioners were obligated to obey such “laws” and pay such “taxes”. When redress was completed, related “laws” and “taxes” expired. (http://redressone.wordpress.com/)
This right of consent has powerful implications today: it means that only those who petition (submit proposed legislation to Congress) are obligated to obey terms (“laws”) and needed money payments “(taxes)” related to such petition.
Two: In 1774, the Continental Congress issued the “Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec”. Its purpose was to encourage Canadians to join the American Revolution. This Appeal, listed three grand rights Americans intended to win with the Revolution: a) consent, b) redress before taxes and c) due process of law. Americans have heard of one and three and, of course, have no or little understanding of either. As to the second right, “redress before taxes”, it has almost been completely erased from our history and law books.
The most comprehensive treatment of this right of “redress before taxes” is contained in my book, The Lost Right, edition 3.5. (http://redressone.wordpress.com/the-lost-right/)
There, in four paragraphs I conveyed to you more real history than you learned in 12 years of elementary and high schools, and 4-6 years of university indoctrination. You won’t learn this and other lessons from professors, or judges, or lawyers; the first two depend on continued grievances for their pensions, the third never learned such history, or law.
Mike you are wrong on an important point. In general, this may be true, “Not only do I find such generalizations to be ignorant and foolish, but I’m also well aware that the status quo intentionally pushes such divisions so that the citizenry remain too busy fighting amongst themselves to unite and take on the real cancer that is the elite established oligarchy.”
But as regards to Islam the problem is Islam. Please take a few hours to read the history if Mohammeds life, the split of Sunni and Shias, Islams conquest of Africa, India, fights into Europe
The problem isn’t Islam. Just like the problem isn’t assault weapons.
The problem in both cases are people. Saying otherwise is just removing individual responsibility from things, which is one of the greatest problems the world faces.
When so-called Christians burned witches at the stake, the problem likewise wasn’t Christianity, it was unenligthened people.
Another swing and a miss mike… Welsh is just another Tea Party yahoo pandering to the haters for $$$ and another shot at congress.
Nothing more, nothing less… and you defend his right to preach hate for personal gain (like most of the GOP clown show btw)?
How about at least calling him out for what he is… a shameless huckster who’ll say anything to rile up the base for donations, web hits, and votes.
I defend everyone’s right to preach hate for whatever reason they choose.
Defending someone’s free speech rights, while at the same time acknowledging that what they said is revolting (the precise adjective I used in the post to describe Walsh’s rant) is a concept that takes a grand total of 4 brain cells to grasp.
Obama, is that you? Making excuses for your muslim scum pals again while attacking those who tell it like it is.
Mike, I am amazed–and appalled–by the stupidity and blind prejudice some of the responders exhibit here. Incredible. “The problem in both cases are people.” This is IT, folks. Keep reading that line until it finally gets through to you. NO religion, NO political system, NO corporate ethos can corrupt and destroy a THINKING human. It takes the willful acquiescence of an individual to surrender their moral capacity to judge the humanity, honesty and correctness of their own actions.
We will NEVER pull out of this spiral of hate and violence until the wicked are punished, the good are spared and the average person has enough rational capacity to understand the difference without recourse to someone else’s ideas about it.