So called “Journalist” wants to ban free speech

Good day all. The left’s assault on individual liberty and rights is escalating. Today we are seeing moonbats, progressives, liberals and Democrats demanding that anyone saying something they don’t like be called hate speech and be banned.

The lasted moron to push this is an alleged journalist and a former editor of Time. His name is Richard Stengel and he thinks we should just institute government censorship and punish anyone who says something he doesn’t like. Here is his column in the Washington Compost:

Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016.

In other words, he is a Progressive Globalist hack who thinks he’s smarter then everyone else. Check!

When I was a journalist, I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?

Considering you and your master, Barack Obama essentially kowtowed to Iran, I can see why you would have difficulty in comprehending the reasons for the First Amendment. Also, in most of the Islamic world, you intentionally torch a Koran, they will execute you. Burning a bible or a Torah is just hunky dory though.

It’s a fair question.

No dumbass, it isn’t.

Yes, the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.

A design flaw? No, it isn’t a ‘Design flaw,” it’s a feature numbnuts.

It is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn’t just protect the good guys; our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society. In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral. They did. Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment.

So what? I remember some of those stories. I found them amusing. You see, I have a brain, common sense and I like to verify things, something you, as a “Journalist” can’t be bothered to do. Nope, you just take the press handout and that’s as far as you go in your research.

The Russians understood that our free press and its reflex toward balance and fairness would enable Moscow to slip its destructive ideas into our media ecosystem. When Putin said back in 2014 that there were no Russian troops in Crimea — an outright lie — he knew our media would report it, and we did.

And did you losers bother to actually go to the Crimea and look around? I think the safe answer would be “Are you kidding? You mean leave my nice comfy cube/office and actually go into the field where I may not be able to get any Evian water or a pumpkin spice double latte with a foamy whipped cream topping or something? (FYI, I loathe Starbucks and drink my coffee black with no sugar the way God and nature intended)

That’s partly because the intellectual underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era. The amendment rests on the notion that the truth will win out in what Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas called “the marketplace of ideas.” This “marketplace” model has a long history going back to 17th-century English intellectual John Milton, but in all that time, no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood.

So let me guess? You think that only certain people who have spent many years being educated at only the finest schools can determine what is a falsehood and what the truth is? Someone like you perhaps?

Milton, an early opponent of censorship, said truth would prevail in a “free and open encounter.” A century later, the framers believed that this marketplace was necessary for people to make informed choices in a democracy. Somehow, magically, truth would emerge. The presumption has always been that the marketplace would offer a level playing field. But in the age of social media, that landscape is neither level nor fair.

I hate to break it to you, but life isn’t fair. I’m also seeing a trend here. You seem to think that these major league scholars who believed in free speech were to stupid to see that technology might advance. Let me guess? You would be one of those who, at the time, would have thought the printing press was a really bad idea, right?

On the Internet, truth is not optimized. On the Web, it’s not enough to battle falsehood with truth; the truth doesn’t always win. In the age of social media, the marketplace model doesn’t work.

And what is your cunning plan? What brilliant idea do you have to make sure the truth will win out? Well, we’re waiting.

A 2016 Stanford study showed that 82 percent of middle schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and an actual news story. Only a quarter of high school students could tell the difference between an actual verified news site and one from a deceptive account designed to look like a real one.

Well, there are a couple of reasons for this. First, middle schoolers are 11-14 years old. They don’t know anything yet, and let’s be honest, they’re hitting puberty and their hormones are driving them bonkers. There is really only one thing they are thinking about and it isn’t the news.

Second, the education system today does not teach critical thinking. In fact, college graduates today couldn’t hold a candle to graduates from the 1940’s and 50’s, and this includes you.

Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust.

And those are countries that do not have a history of protecting freedom of speech either. One of them is Germany, and guess what? They’re jailing anyone who makes any comments regarding Muslims and the crimes they’re committing, such as gang raping 14 year old girls. Hell, they’re jailing the 14 year old victims because to accuse a Muslim of raping her is…wait for it…a Hate Crime!!

We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is.

Sure there is. It’s anything the ruling Progressive elite doesn’t like.

In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.

Darn! Well I guess that’s it for Dirty Harry Callahan!

I think it’s time to consider these statutes.

Oh no it isn’t! EVER!!

The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites “imminent lawless action” or is likely to do so can be restricted.

You might want to review that you idiot. While I can’t make head or tails out of the legal jargon, I did get the cursory view from Wikipedia. The key section is “The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg’s conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.”

In other words, if I am understanding this correctly, unless they actually commit an action, you can’t stop them from spewing their garbage.

Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech.

They weren’t domestic terrorists dumb ass, they were straight out murderers. They just wanted to murder people and didn’t have a political agenda. Now Timothy McVeigh, HE was a domestic terrorist. Oh, I don’t recall him actually saying or writing anything, but I could be wrong.

Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?

No, it doesn’t. You, like all Progressive Liberal Democrats like to blame the group, the idea or the object instead of holding the individual responsible for their actions.

Let the debate begin.

Let’s not and say we did.

Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance.

Well, it looks like you want to arrest pretty much the entire Progressive Liberal Democrat party. They are the most hateful, intolerant, bigoted bunch I’ve had the displeasure to hear.

It enables discrimination.

No it doesn’t. Actions enable discrimination. Here’s a fact you might not like. Everyone discriminates. It’s part of human nature. There are people I discriminate against because there is something about them that just hits me the wrong way. Do I go around and insult them. Generally no. What I do object to is people like you who have decided I have no choice but to like whatever it is I don’t like. That is what these bogus “Hate” laws do.

Isn’t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law? Why shouldn’t the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation?

Why? Because it’s censorship and unconstitutional. Oh, yeah, there is that pesky constitution that you progressives hate so much.

All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate. It undermines the very values of a fair marketplace of ideas that the First Amendment is designed to protect.

You have no frakking clue. You claim to be a believer in free speech but you can’t wait to punish anyone who says something you don’t like or find offensive. Hey guess what? I find what you wrote to be offensive and I want you arrested and jailed. Trial? Due Process? Why should you have that since you are a hater? Just lock you up and throw away the key.

I can tell you one thing that will happen if these laws go into place and are used. Someone is going to get killed, probably a whole lot of someones including a boatload of federal, state and local law enforcement officers. You see, along with that pesky 1st Amendment, we have the 2nd Amendment, something that you, no doubt, want repealed.

When people see or feel that their rights are being stolen from them by people like yourself, and they can’t find any way to stop you within the law, they move to other means, such as pushing the 2nd Amendment reset button.

Like all moonbats, progressives, socialists, progressives liberals and Democrats, you fail to understand that the best way to fight bad information is to provide lots of good information. Since your part of what is known as the “Main Stream media” and the MSM has been caught time and time again flat out lying about what is going on, is it surprising that no one believes anything you say or write any longer?

I think that’s the real reason you want to impose censorship on people. You don’t want anyone to have the opportunity to show the world what a liar you are. What you are peddling is propaganda. Providing good information to clear out the bad is not possible for you or your cohorts in crime. You’ve lost the role of “Gatekeeper” and now you’re scrambling. Designating anything you disagree with as “Hate Speech would go a long way to restoring your power. It isn’t going to happen.


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

~The Angry Webmaster~

Share Button