Ethically-challenged Senator Di Fi is camouflaging her attack on freedom of speech. Notice her attempt to win reporters to her cause:
Winning reporters to her cause is superfluous. The press hates freedom of speech on the Internet as much as Di Fi and her fellow Democrats hate it. Understandably, liberals unanimously oppose freedom of speech whenever their ideology is attacked. They cannot defend their ideology so they attack the medium and/or freedom of speech itself. None of that was necessary when freedom of speech was only practiced by soap box orators and barroom pundits.
Di Fi is dead wrong about this:
What if those “volunteers and writers who are not paid” are graduates of an accredited journalism school? And do they stop being journalists when they are between jobs? And does a paid job include the owner of a website who turns a buck on advertising? Or running a subscription-only website? The owners of Di Fi’s favorite newspapers are going in that direction.
Here’s where Di Fi trips over her tongue:
Freedom of speech does not demand professional qualifications.
And what the hell is a citizen journalist in Di Fi’s world? I assume she means that everybody who writes, or says, anything political without earning a penny as a journalist should shut up so crooks like her and her kind can get richer and richer on tax dollars.
Group think
Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton:
Cass Sunstein’s “conspiracy theorizing”:
and Di Fi’s “citizen journalist” end in the same place. Government control of Internet content.
Note that the government’s definition of “conspiracy theorizing” is still freedom of speech.
Clearly, the government is after free speech on the Internet. Labeling everyone a citizen journalist who comments on politics gives the government the justification to punish “unlicensed” journalists. The objective: Deny freedom of speech to everyone posting on the Internet without a license. It does not take a genius to see which individuals will be punished for speaking without a license.
Liberal douche bags like Senator Feinstein are not the only ones attacking freedom of speech:
Reestablishing constitutionally guarantied freedom of speech threatens the decades of efforts Socialists put into imposing politically correct speech on the country irrespective of the First Amendment.
This excerpt goes to the heart of the Left’s opposition to freedom of speech:
The only thing scarier than Barack Taqiyya, the Clintons, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, or any Democrat determining what is true or false is having federal bureaucrats like the ones the country heard from in recent scandals separating truth from lies!
The First Amendment says Congress shall make no laws
No laws means no laws. It does not mean that constitutional protection is only granted to truthful speech. Nor does it require the press to tell the truth. Hell, there would be no advertising if the press stopped lying. Indeed, the First Amendment is a license to lie. The problem liberals are having because of the Internet is that they want everybody else to tell the truth while Socialists retain their constitutional Right to lie about everything.
Freedom of speech has been under attack from all quarters since the day it took off on the Internet. The attacks not only come from the government. This excerpt from a 2008 article reveals an assault on freedom of speech —— not coming from government but coming from the education industry:
Academia’s assault on speech accomplishes two objectives:
1. Free speech is not only prohibited —— the thought police punishes offenders.
2. Politically correct speech is demanded —— and rewarded.
In the real world it is offensive speech that requires the most protection. That basic truth should apply to the classroom even more than it applies elsewhere. When all is said and done, protecting kissy-kissy, touchy-feely, moralizing is not necessary.
The current assaults on freedom of speech in the academy show that Socialists are hellbent on silencing opposition while forcing their own message on everyone. And, as always, Socialists use tax dollars to promote their religion. Everything related to restricting freedom of speech in the classroom is being supported by tax dollars.
Is it possible to make academic censorship a First Amendment issue? Yes —— so long as tax dollars are involved. Obviously, those folks in state and federal governments who collect and spend our tax dollars agree with limiting speech, as well as encouraging politically correct speech. Were that not true they would deny all funding to higher education for starters.
The things you cannot say, and the things you must say, is clearly an evolutionary step in America’s culture. In the past, the opponents of free speech confined their attacks on free speech to silencing it. The long-running debate used to be about shutting people up. Nowadays, it’s about making them listen as much as it is about shutting them up.
To me, “freedom of political speech” is absolute, or at least it should be. Absolute is always absolute. It is no secret that all governments just love protecting meaningless speech, while all governments claim the absolute Right to define which oral communications are dangerous. If an individual’s constitutional Rights are not as absolute as are the government’s Rights, the individual has no Rights at all. At best, the individual’s constitutional Rights are nothing more than lawyers’ laws dressed up to look prettier than they actually are.
Parenthetically, have you ever heard of a sign-talker being accused of saying anything the government finds offensive? Wouldn’t a case like that be a hoot if it ever got to the High Court?
One unshakable fact about speech: All speech, by its very nature, is most closely related to “Let the buyer beware.”
Finally, how many times did the words “limits on political speech” appear in High Court decisions before the Internet? How many times did James Madison say those words?
Winning reporters to her cause is superfluous. The press hates freedom of speech on the Internet as much as Di Fi and her fellow Democrats hate it. Understandably, liberals unanimously oppose freedom of speech whenever their ideology is attacked. They cannot defend their ideology so they attack the medium and/or freedom of speech itself. None of that was necessary when freedom of speech was only practiced by soap box orators and barroom pundits.
Di Fi is dead wrong about this:
What if those “volunteers and writers who are not paid” are graduates of an accredited journalism school? And do they stop being journalists when they are between jobs? And does a paid job include the owner of a website who turns a buck on advertising? Or running a subscription-only website? The owners of Di Fi’s favorite newspapers are going in that direction.
Here’s where Di Fi trips over her tongue:
Freedom of speech does not demand professional qualifications.
And what the hell is a citizen journalist in Di Fi’s world? I assume she means that everybody who writes, or says, anything political without earning a penny as a journalist should shut up so crooks like her and her kind can get richer and richer on tax dollars.
Group think
Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton:
Cass Sunstein’s “conspiracy theorizing”:
and Di Fi’s “citizen journalist” end in the same place. Government control of Internet content.
Note that the government’s definition of “conspiracy theorizing” is still freedom of speech.
Clearly, the government is after free speech on the Internet. Labeling everyone a citizen journalist who comments on politics gives the government the justification to punish “unlicensed” journalists. The objective: Deny freedom of speech to everyone posting on the Internet without a license. It does not take a genius to see which individuals will be punished for speaking without a license.
Liberal douche bags like Senator Feinstein are not the only ones attacking freedom of speech:
Reestablishing constitutionally guarantied freedom of speech threatens the decades of efforts Socialists put into imposing politically correct speech on the country irrespective of the First Amendment.
This excerpt goes to the heart of the Left’s opposition to freedom of speech:
The only thing scarier than Barack Taqiyya, the Clintons, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, or any Democrat determining what is true or false is having federal bureaucrats like the ones the country heard from in recent scandals separating truth from lies!
The First Amendment says Congress shall make no laws
No laws means no laws. It does not mean that constitutional protection is only granted to truthful speech. Nor does it require the press to tell the truth. Hell, there would be no advertising if the press stopped lying. Indeed, the First Amendment is a license to lie. The problem liberals are having because of the Internet is that they want everybody else to tell the truth while Socialists retain their constitutional Right to lie about everything.
Freedom of speech has been under attack from all quarters since the day it took off on the Internet. The attacks not only come from the government. This excerpt from a 2008 article reveals an assault on freedom of speech —— not coming from government but coming from the education industry:
Academia’s assault on speech accomplishes two objectives:
1. Free speech is not only prohibited —— the thought police punishes offenders.
2. Politically correct speech is demanded —— and rewarded.
In the real world it is offensive speech that requires the most protection. That basic truth should apply to the classroom even more than it applies elsewhere. When all is said and done, protecting kissy-kissy, touchy-feely, moralizing is not necessary.
The current assaults on freedom of speech in the academy show that Socialists are hellbent on silencing opposition while forcing their own message on everyone. And, as always, Socialists use tax dollars to promote their religion. Everything related to restricting freedom of speech in the classroom is being supported by tax dollars.
Is it possible to make academic censorship a First Amendment issue? Yes —— so long as tax dollars are involved. Obviously, those folks in state and federal governments who collect and spend our tax dollars agree with limiting speech, as well as encouraging politically correct speech. Were that not true they would deny all funding to higher education for starters.
The things you cannot say, and the things you must say, is clearly an evolutionary step in America’s culture. In the past, the opponents of free speech confined their attacks on free speech to silencing it. The long-running debate used to be about shutting people up. Nowadays, it’s about making them listen as much as it is about shutting them up.
To me, “freedom of political speech” is absolute, or at least it should be. Absolute is always absolute. It is no secret that all governments just love protecting meaningless speech, while all governments claim the absolute Right to define which oral communications are dangerous. If an individual’s constitutional Rights are not as absolute as are the government’s Rights, the individual has no Rights at all. At best, the individual’s constitutional Rights are nothing more than lawyers’ laws dressed up to look prettier than they actually are.
Parenthetically, have you ever heard of a sign-talker being accused of saying anything the government finds offensive? Wouldn’t a case like that be a hoot if it ever got to the High Court?
One unshakable fact about speech: All speech, by its very nature, is most closely related to “Let the buyer beware.”
Finally, how many times did the words “limits on political speech” appear in High Court decisions before the Internet? How many times did James Madison say those words?
Last edited:
