In a couple of Supreme Court rulings regarding a rock band called The Slants and the NFL's Washington Redskins, SCOTUS has fallen heavily on the side of free speech. If there's one thing the court has always been consistent on it's the First Amendment. The justices have always held a certain clarity understanding very well where suppressing speech can lead.
This highly nuanced understanding of the concept of freedom of speech and expression is what separates the United States from the rest of the world including Canada. In fact, Canada under the Trudeau Liberals take an opposite position on free speech believing it's the job of the government to regulate. Even on touchy subjects the Americans stay true to its principles.
It shouldn't have to be demonstrated to anyone why this is a bad idea and can lead to all sorts of problems. History is littered with examples of what happens when the government controls speech. From the Soviet Union to China to Cuba to even contemporary Europe.
The U.S. stands alone and a true beacon for countries to emulate. Alas, they seem hell bent on taking away freedom of speech and expression.
I don't think people understand the importance of the U.S. constitution where rights are concerned. Essentially, it protects people from tyranny. So if 320 999 999 out of 321 000 000 people decide you can't say something or dress a certain way or have to love according to their mores and standards, the principle of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' protects that lone person and their inalienable rights. Or else you have tyranny; be it through a dictator or a committee of bureaucrats aka totalitarianism.
So when Canadians tolerate the Liberals cracking down on speech for criticizing Islam, what they're consenting to is tyranny. The idea that balancing speech in the name of civilly is a grotesque lie. Why should one group of people have the right to suppress the rights of others? Tyranny of the majority is plain tyranny once it uses coercion to ruin a person's life over their right to freedom of speech and expression.
A culture, community, country doesn't have the right to be protected from speech that offends. This is the mark of regressive progressives. What they have a right to is to speak their minds without fear of being arrested.
It really isn't complicated nor can it be negotiated. You either have it or you don't.
The latest ruling on The Slants is the latest slap down of the Obama administration (and its woeful and dreadful record in the Supreme Court and its hostility towards the subject) who demonstrated a breath taking arrogance. Basically, the government wasn't telling a Chinese band on how to correctly behave when it came to its own culture. And there's more where that came from (someone should have taught Obama on how to properly grip a football).
The court sided with the band. Samuel Alito, for his part, was on fire:
"The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend." As Alito noted in response, "that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'"
This highly nuanced understanding of the concept of freedom of speech and expression is what separates the United States from the rest of the world including Canada. In fact, Canada under the Trudeau Liberals take an opposite position on free speech believing it's the job of the government to regulate. Even on touchy subjects the Americans stay true to its principles.
It shouldn't have to be demonstrated to anyone why this is a bad idea and can lead to all sorts of problems. History is littered with examples of what happens when the government controls speech. From the Soviet Union to China to Cuba to even contemporary Europe.
The U.S. stands alone and a true beacon for countries to emulate. Alas, they seem hell bent on taking away freedom of speech and expression.
I don't think people understand the importance of the U.S. constitution where rights are concerned. Essentially, it protects people from tyranny. So if 320 999 999 out of 321 000 000 people decide you can't say something or dress a certain way or have to love according to their mores and standards, the principle of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' protects that lone person and their inalienable rights. Or else you have tyranny; be it through a dictator or a committee of bureaucrats aka totalitarianism.
So when Canadians tolerate the Liberals cracking down on speech for criticizing Islam, what they're consenting to is tyranny. The idea that balancing speech in the name of civilly is a grotesque lie. Why should one group of people have the right to suppress the rights of others? Tyranny of the majority is plain tyranny once it uses coercion to ruin a person's life over their right to freedom of speech and expression.
A culture, community, country doesn't have the right to be protected from speech that offends. This is the mark of regressive progressives. What they have a right to is to speak their minds without fear of being arrested.
It really isn't complicated nor can it be negotiated. You either have it or you don't.
The latest ruling on The Slants is the latest slap down of the Obama administration (and its woeful and dreadful record in the Supreme Court and its hostility towards the subject) who demonstrated a breath taking arrogance. Basically, the government wasn't telling a Chinese band on how to correctly behave when it came to its own culture. And there's more where that came from (someone should have taught Obama on how to properly grip a football).
The court sided with the band. Samuel Alito, for his part, was on fire:
"The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend." As Alito noted in response, "that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'"
"It is thus far-fetched to suggest that the content of a registered mark is government speech, especially given the fact that if trademarks become government speech when they are registered, the Federal Government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently."
A society that off-loads its right to free speech and expression is not a free society but one in which is a slave to the tyrannical whims of the state.
Canadians should join their American cousins in vigilantly protecting such a precious right of individual agency.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.