Posts Tagged ‘freedom of speech’

To imagine what hell the United States would be without the First Amendment we just need to examine the rest of the world

Posted: March 21, 2024 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

What completely boggles the mind is how rabidly the political left despises freedom of speech.  Sadly, the United States was the only nation who’s founding fathers sought to protect that most fundamental God-given Natural Right.  The genius of the First Amendment has been abundantly evident for over two centuries.  Unfortunately, no other nation sought to emulate it completely.  Tragically the Marxists who call themselves Democrats have been chipping away at the First Amendment for over a century.  Most tragically they have very nearly succeeded at completely obliterating it.

I encountered two articles this past week that lay bare just how appalling life here in the United States would be if the political left succeeded in erasing the First Amendment. 

As you can see this first article is from Scotland: ‘Target Comics’: Scotland’s New Hate Crime Law Makes Us Grateful for the First Amendment – Twitchy

Police officers in Scotland are being given training to target social media posts, including re-tweets, of material deemed “threatening and abusive.” Under the county’s new hate crime law, actors and comedians are not given a free pass to make jokes about sensitive subjects that offend people, either.

The new training provided to officers, which was leaked to The Herald, requires police officers to go after anyone who produces material deemed “threatening and abusive,” which can also be communicated through “public performance of a play.” 

Under the new hate crime law, people who make fun of or misgender trans people, make racial jokes or criticisms of certain religions, or criticize migrants can be prosecuted. 

In Scotland no one will dare to say or share anything that is remotely controversial or that contradicts progressive orthodoxy in any way.

The different ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by: displaying, publishing or distributing the material, for example on a sign, on the internet through websites, blogs, podcasts, social media etc., either directly, or by forwarding or repeating material that originates from a third party, through printed media such as magazine publications or leaflets.” 

The hate crime law goes on to state that “giving, sending, showing, or playing the material to another person” listing examples such as “through online streaming, by email, playing a video, through public performance of a play.” 

So repeat a joke you heard online, or show someone a spicy meme or commentary of a transgender person or mass migration on your livestream, and, and you too will be arrested. 

Canada is now as hostile to freedom of speech as the old Soviet Union: Trudeau’s Canada: Law May Allow Life Imprisonment for Speech ‘Crimes’ (breitbart.com)

A proposed law in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Canada will reportedly allow judges to throw adults in jail for life if they advocate for genocide online.

The Biden regime has worked tirelessly to annihilate the First Amendment, going as far as to deputies social media companies.  The regime’s efforts are now being challenged in front of the Supreme Court.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is proving exactly why she was nominated by the Biden Regime and just how much she despises the First Amendment. Justice Jackson Tells GOP Officials: Your View of First Amendment Is ‘Hamstringing the Government’ (westernjournal.com)

“So not every situation in which the government engages in conduct that ultimately has some effect on free speech necessarily becomes a First Amendment violation, correct?” Jackson queried.

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson said.

Busting Some Freedom of Speech Myths

Posted: March 14, 2024 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

It is excruciatingly obvious that very few individuals living in the United States truly understand freedom of speech.  Those on the political left are not only clueless about this most fundamental right, they openly despise the very concept of it.  Thanks to our criminally atrocious educational system the younger generations are also clueless and also openly hostile to the concept of freedom of speech.  Unfortunately, those of us on the political right sometimes demonstrate a lack of understanding when it comes to freedom of speech.  It is now time to dispel the most common misconceptions about freedom of speech that I’ve encountered.

There is no hate speech exception to freedom of speech.

Someone asked me if I support the right of the KKK to hold rallies in public. My answer is: Even though I find the KKK absolutely reprehensible and I am completely disgusted by everything they stand for I support their right to say it in public. If I found out there was a KKK rally planned in my area I would work tirelessly to organize a PEACEFUL protest and I would make sure my protest would completely dwarf the KKK rally. That is the essence of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. No one has a right to silence others, no matter how much they disagree with what others have to say. No one has a right to prevent another person, or group, from holding an event, or to interfere with that event in any way. Everyone has a right to peacefully protest anytime they want.

Even the most reprehensible individuals have a right to say the most reprehensible things. 

Far too often those on the political left label speech that contradicts leftist orthodoxy as hate speech.  They then use the declaration of hate speech as a weapon to silence that speech they disagree with.

There is no misinformation exception to freedom of speech.

Each and every individual has a right to spread whatever lies they wish to spread, on whatever medium they wish to use.  Outright spreading of misinformation and disinformation is most definitely protected by freedom of speech. 

Labeling speech that contradicts the progressive narrative as misinformation, and then censoring that speech is a favorite tactic of the Marxists who masquerade as Democrats.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from policing speech.

Each and every attempt at regulating speech by the federal government is a direct violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.  That includes so called hate speech and misinformation.  The federal government has zero authority to define those concepts, and zero authority to classify speech according to those criteria.  The federal government has absolutely no authority to ban any speech at all.

Every state has a Bill of Rights that protects the rights of those living there from the tyranny of the state government and the local governments.  That includes freedom of speech.

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights.

All rights are granted to each and every individual directly by God.  The Bill of Rights is merely a restraining order that prohibits the federal government from infringing on, or regulating, our most fundamental rights in any way.  There is no such thing as a First Amendment Right, only God-given Natural Rights.

Governments most definitely do not grant rights.

The Respect for Marriage Act violates four clauses of the First Amendment

Posted: December 1, 2022 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

On Tuesday the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act.  Twelve traitorous Republicans joined with the Democrats to pass this Bill, which will trample on the Religious Liberty of every American, particularly those who believe in traditional marriage. 

Freedom of Religion is one of our most important God-given natural rights.  It is enshrined in the First Amendment.  Thanks to this clause, the federal government is barred from trampling on the religious freedom of every single individual. 

This letter from Republican Senator Mike Lee chronicles just how the Respect for Marriage Act violates the Free Exercise of Religion clause.

As you are aware, we are one step closer to passing into law the Respect for Marriage Act. In the Obergefell oral arguments, there was a now infamous exchange between Justice Alito and then–Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. In response to Justice Alito asking whether, should states be required to recognize same-sex marriages, religious universities opposed to same-sex marriage would lose their tax-exempt status, General Verrilli replied, “ . . . it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito, –it is going to be an issue.”

And it is an issue. Obergefell did not make a private right of action for aggrieved individuals to sue those who oppose same-sex marriage. It did not create a mandate for the Department of Justice to sue where it perceived an institution opposed same-sex marriage, but the Respect for Marriage Act will. What we can expect should this bill become law is more litigation against those institutions and individuals trying to live according to their sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions.

Should Congress decide to codify Obergefell and protect same-sex marriages, we must do so in a way that also resolves the question posed by Justice Alito. Instead of subjecting churches, religious non-profits, and persons of conscience to undue scrutiny or punishment by the federal government because of their views on marriage, we should make explicitly clear that this legislation does not constitute a national policy endorsing a particular view of marriage that threatens the tax exempt status of faith-based non-profits. As we move forward, let us be sure to keep churches, religious charities, and religious universities out of litigation in the first instance. No American should face legal harassment or retaliation from the federal government for holding sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

According to this Fox News article, Republicans were able to incorporate a very modest religious liberty amendment, while failing to pass true religious liberty amendments. 

An amendment by Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., was adopted Monday evening aimed at making sure the bill does not undermine religious liberty and states that nonprofit religious organizations “shall not be required to provide services” to a marriage it opposes.

On Tuesday the senate also considered three additional amendments to the bill by Senators Marco Rubio, R-Florida, Mike Lee, R-Utah, and James Lankford, R-Okla., that would have purportedly added stronger religious liberty protections to the measure, but all failed to reach a threshold vote for final adoption. 

The First Amendment consists of the following six clauses. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Respect for Marriage act violates four of them.  Firstly, this act establishes progressive orthodoxy as the official religion of the United States, in direct violation of the establishment clause.  After this act is passed, Americans who hold and espouse views contradictory to progressive orthodoxy will be punished, violating the free exercise of religion clause and the free speech clause.  The freedom to assemble includes the freedom to not assemble.  The Respect for Marriage Act forces private venues to assemble for marriage ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.

Elon Musk’s attempt to buy Twitter has demonstrated just how much the political left abhors free speech

Posted: April 21, 2022 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

For the past week I’ve been watching the drama unfold online, stirred up by Elon Musk and his attempt to purchase Twitter.  The drama has been entertaining and repulsive, watching progressives melt down over the fear that Elon Musk will bring free speech to Twitter.

This editorial, Opinion | Let’s hope Elon Musk doesn’t win his bid for Twitter – The Washington Post, is one of the more nauseating, although subtle, examples.

Mr. Musk has promised to make Twitter a “platform for free speech around the globe.” This vision is more or less the same one now-departed CEO Jack Dorsey championed throughout his tenure, and especially in the platform’s early days. But like its industry peers, Twitter has moved over time toward stricter rules. That isn’t because executives have changed their views, but rather because they have learned some lessons after observing how their products can be abused to manipulate elections, or spread health misinformation, or harass people en masse.

Certainly, moderators sometimes make mistakes, and more transparency surrounding enforcement decisions is in order. But a broader backtracking would be an error. To protect speech at all costs and keep Twitter free of bots and spam, as Mr. Musk has said he would like to do, is almost impossible.

This quote is right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  The Marxist Oligarchs who control social media, and the vast majority of news organizations, are the individuals who manipulated the 2020 election so successfully it was stolen from President Trump..  Also they are the real cluprits guilty of spreading nonstop health misinformation, while censoring the actual truth.

The left has often channeled George Orwell and his Newspeak.   No better example is this Tweet.

The Left Wing Oligarchs have almost held a total monopoly over online political speech.   It has all been part of a master plan.  The author of this article, Media Is Hating On Musk’s Twitter Bid Because They Hate Free Thought (thefederalist.com), does a fantastic job outlining the grand scheme.

Right now, the corporate media and Big Tech are on a thought control team running interference for the left. The outlets set the narrative with biased, misleading, and fluffy coverage of Democrats. The media constantly tells Americans that Donald Trump worked with the Russians to steal the 2016 election, Kavanaugh is a rapist, Republicans are racists and domestic terrorists, and the summer of rage riots were “mostly peaceful.”

The media expect you to believe all of those lies because they said it was so. If you question them, they smear you for spreading “misinformation.” Big Tech reinforces that deliberately faulty coverage by editorializing and spinning news for its “trending topic” section on the site.

For years, Silicon Valley giants have done the control regime’s bidding. When the left felt threatened by Trump, conversations about Covid-19 origins and treatments, election integrity, Hunter Biden’s laptop, or the truth about biological sex, Big Tech companies such as Twitter gladly banned, censored, and “fact-checked” any content it deemed “misinformation.”

The only thing that disrupts this cycle is when the uncensored, unmanipulated truth about the media’s depravity is exposed. As it stands right now, any narratives that contradict the thought control regime’s wishes are obliterated from the internet.

The mask has completely slipped off the political left thanks to Elon Musk’s battle to purchase Twitter.  As Michelle Malkin so famously said “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Older Entries