Speech

*Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. (1780) (Ben Franklin)

*Congress shall make no law abridging the freeness of speech, or of the press. Bill of Rights (2055) (part of Article 1 of the Bill of Rights)

One over-looked aspect of the fragility of the First Amendment is the power of some politicians to regulate, or tax out of existence, something that can be disruptive to their secure little world. A recent example is the liberal’s burning desire to regulate and tax the Internet. Liberals are freaking out because their monopoly on news coverage is dissolving. “Too many people have access to too much free speech, and even (gods help us!) truth!”

Conservative “think tank” and news websites are far more popular, and far out-number their liberal counterparts. This means that long-hidden liberal secrets and agendas are finally seeing the light of day. Not only that, but just regular news that Alphabetsoup (ABC, PBS, MSNBC, etc.) prefers not to broadcast is now available to average Americans. You can even get news before Alphabetsoup slants it unrecognizably to the left.

Cass Sunstein ( University of Chicago law professor) wrote Republic.com in which he complains, “[A] commitment to consumer sovereignty may well compromise political sovereignty.” Why? “Consumers are able to see exactly what they want,” and consumers are free “to limit their exposure to like-minded viewpoints.” The New YorkTimes lauded his work because it raised “important and troubling questions about the effects of the Internet on a democratic society.”

Time magazine agreed. In 1996 it warned America that any American can now “totally customize his or her daily supply of information.” This disaster means “news is no longer a common experience” because it is “moving away from the universal.”

Hillary Clinton is in a fit because of the “accessibility and instantaneous information on the computer.” She believes we are in desperate need of some “kind of editing function or gate-keeping function” for the internet because “It is just beyond imagination what can be disseminated. [W]e are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this.” She said this in a press conference two weeks after Matt Drudge’s website exposed Bill & Monica’s Great Adventure. (It should be noted that Newsweek already had the story but would not release it.)

When the story of the Great Adventure was blown wide open, Matt Drudge became the most hated man in Liberaldom. The publisher of Columbia Journalism Review, Joan Konner, whined that Matt Drudge is “by no reasonable measure working in the public interest.” Marvin Kalb of the Shorenstein Center described Drudge as “a conveyor of gossipy information.”

The Wall Street Journal quoted Floyd Abrams (famous as a First Amendment “lawyer”) as saying, “If one were rewriting libel laws today, one would try to write it to assure that the false statements of Matt Drudge were treated as libel.” I wonder if Mr. Abrams would like to rewrite all freedom-of-speech laws to outlaw anything that would disrupt his own little liberal mindset. I wonder if Mr. Abrams would lift a finger to assist a conservative who was truly libeled? Anyway, liberals took Drudge to court over something he said about Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, but their libel suit backfired and Blumenthal was forced to pay Drudge money.

In September of 2004, Dan Rather rushed to production a now infamous piece slandering President G. W. Bush. The whole thing was ludicrous. The “thirty-year-old” documents were produced on a modern word processor. Were the liberal editor/ gatekeepers up in arms? No. But you can bet our enemies, in this time of war, are having a good laugh because of what their archnemesis is being put through by his fellow Americans.

*Being politically correct means living like there is no First Amendment. (2235)

One of the greatest threats to free speech in our republic is the legislation of “hate speech” laws. I personally despise hatred in any form, spoken or written, but there are fools in America who hate other people because it makes them feel better about themselves. I guess it’s part of their “pursuit of happiness.” Making their pursuit of happiness illegal will not change their minds. But more frivolous lawsuits will further clog up our already backed-up courtrooms, which causes more antagonism between everyone (except money-grubbing lawyers).

“Hate speech” laws have nothing to do with “fighting words,” or words to incite riots, etc., since they have never been protected by law. It is simply the first step in shutting down the First Amendment. This legislation has gone so far as to make it illegal to crack race jokes or even mimic someone’s accent just because a few anti-First Amendment politicians have determined that that particular race or accent is “protected.”

These laws also apply to homosexuals. The California legislature has passed legislation (SB 1234) that would make it illegal to call homosexuality a sin. It would be punishable by five years in prison or a $25,000 fine. The money would not be paid to the government but to the person who accused the defendant of homosexual “hate speech.” You think this could never happen in a free country? Think again.

In Canada it is illegal to call homosexuality a sin. It’s part of their “hate speech and genocide law.” Preachers can still read Bible verses in church that call homosexuality a sin, but they know they are under the gun. In Sweden, because of “hate speech” laws, a Pentecostal pastor was sentenced to one month in prison for preaching to his forty congregants that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. The prosecutor appealed the conviction – he wants pastor Ake Green to spend six months in prison.

When I was young it was, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” Nowadays names such as “sinner” can land you in prison.

*A slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts. Euripides (671)

*Cenedl hew iaith cenedl gallon. (633) (Welsh – A nation without a language is a nation without a heart.)

*In a conversation, keep in mind that you’re more interested in what you have to say than anyone else is. (2085) (Andy Rooney)

*Guard your tongue in youth, and in age you may mature a thought that will be of service to your people. (2746) (Souix Chief Wabasha)

*A soft low voice has always been considered an excellent thing. (2802) (Ohiyesa – Charles Alexander Eastman)

There once was a time when fiery oration was all the rage. It was great for stirring up emotions, and some demagogues used it quite successfully.

I would hope that 21 st Century mankind has put away yelling as a way to convey philosophy. I would hope that 21 st Century mankind favors calm, straightforward logic and truth, instead of wild-eyed gesticulations and decibels.

There is still a time and place for yelling such as when speaking to someone at a great distance, at a rock-concert, or when someone is in imminent danger, but I can’t think of any other time when volume is called for.

As humanity becomes more enlightened (and crowded), I would hope parents would put away yelling as a way to communicate with their children; employers with their workers; and speakers with their audiences.

*Silence is the absolute poise or balance of body, mind, and spirit. (2804) (Ohiyesa)

*Silence cannot be misquoted. (601)