If you were paying attention to the vice-presidential debate, you would have gotten a whiff of what the liberal goons are cooking, and that is true censorship.
It’s part of the game played by the cretins who want to keep power: change the definition of things so it no longer fits into the protective cover provided by law — like claiming a fetus isn’t a human being deserving of protection since it lives inside a woman.
Walz, in his goon-like manner, claimed that misinformation and hate speech are not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, the amendment quite clearly, and in less that a full sentence, states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Walz trotted out the tired, and judicially negated, “can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater” trope as a prop to show that there’s a real good reason to limit speech.
But in the minds of the power-mad, if you call something bad, and call it bad often enough, then cultural zeitgeist will kick in and people will automatically say that bad things cannot be disseminated in any form.
Mark Zuckerberg admitted to throttling anything on Facebook deemed bad by the Biden administration over COVID because it went against the will of the powers that be; perpetual election loser Hillary Clinton is calling for criminal penalties for “misinformation” on the web; even emergency backup presidential candidate Kamala Harris said that social media is putting out “misinformation” with out any sort of regulation and it has to stop.
Of course, the sheeple who buy in to the whole “decency is on the ballot” trope will echo this sentiment wholeheartedly and even physically, all the while the lot of them will claim that free-speech proponents are actually the ones doing the censorship.
One of the many problems that exist with this “idea” is that who decides what is hate speech or misinformation? Obviously, the people pushing for limits are the people who decide what those limits will be, which is why the framers of the Constitution said no limits whatsoever.
But look at how the language is used when calling out misinformation — it’s carefully crafted to denigrate only the words that are in direct conflict with the politically correct stance. Look at how the word racism has expanded from people hating specific races to everything that even remotely — or not so remotely — affects a protected class of people. Aptitude and proficiency tests are racists, voter ID requirements are racist, even the slogan “Make America Great Again” has been deemed racist. (However, calling racism when there is none, such as the fetid white privilege scam, is not racist, even though it’s directed at a specific race. Go figure.)
Obviously, the mouth monitors will go with the winning side.
A second problem, again using the white privilege scam as an example, is these proposed rules will never be applied equally, and always to the benefit of the authority du jour.
A more recent example, also, is calling it racist, homophobic and even censorship for people wanting sexually explicit material removed from school libraries. Since it’s deemed misinformative to want to keep books explaining oral sex away from children because it is hateful to the LBGTLMNOP crowd, we’ll carry torches and pitchforks against any naysayers.
The argument that parents and others want to keep things age-appropriate (and maybe have teachers deal with things like math, science and language arts) is actually censorship flies in the face of other things, like the parental guidance ratings given to movies, television programs and music containing sexually explicit or expletive-laden lyrics.
The inequality in application of language laws, as well as the need for policing language deemed misinformative or hateful, is seriously not about anything other than control. Orwell said as much, saying control thought, you control the person.
It to me is amazing that the framers were so far-sighted as to predict the need for the protection of speech. It’s up to us to keep the dream alive, and that must include being able to speak our piece.
Tony Farkas is the editor of the Trinity County News-Standard and the San Jacinto News-Times. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
