Here's the important thing: the Founders probably wouldn't have liked the cultural transgressions or the music -- but it is America. Just that -- America. So let them hear you and don't let them stop you.
I don't care what side you pick on the great questions of the age - climate change, gay marriage, Islam, transgendered bathrooms, whatever - but, if you're on the side that says the other guy isn't entitled to a side, you're on the wrong side.
Mark Steyn Takes on Hate Speech prohibitions. A kind of apostasy law...
I I
I see no need to refer to "bunch of creeps" in the title to this video but couldn't find anything without it. If we're talking about different views, respect and courtesy are two way streets.
Speaking of Hitler, I’m ending my support of UC Berkeley, where I got my MBA years ago.I have been a big supporter lately, with both my time and money, but that ends today.
I wish them well, but I wouldn’t feel safe or welcome on the campus. A Berkeley professor made that clear to me recently. He seems smart, so I’ll take his word for it. I’ve decided to side with the Jewish gay immigrant who has an African-American boyfriend, not the hypnotized zombie-boys in black masks who were clubbing people who hold different points of view. I feel that’s reasonable, but I know many will disagree, and possibly try to club me to death if I walk on campus.
I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they’re doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, I am sure they each have it somewhere in their offices.
Here’s what’s happened so far. First, Schneiderman and reportedly Harris sought to investigate Exxon in part for making donations to groups and funding research by individuals who think “climate change” is either a hoax, or not a problem to the extent that people like Harris and Schneiderman say it is.
Read the whole article -- you need to pay attention.
George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four described “crimethink” as entertaining thoughts unacceptable to the government. Decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court anticipated this horrific hypothetical when Justice Robert Jackson wrote:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. — West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
“Freedom is only meaningful if it includes all speech, no matter who is offended by it,” he said. “It would be a hazardous undertaking for anyone to start separating the permissible speech from the impermissible, using the standard of offensiveness.The freedom guaranteed in the First Amendment is indivisible. You can’t take it away from Larry Flynt and keep it for yourself. The real issue of this case is: Are we afraid to be free?”